2000-06-27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 27, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ALAN ABBOTT
ANTHONY METIVIER
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER
OWNER: SAME AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES ZONE: SFR-1A
LOCATION: AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE
SCHOOL’S FACILITIES. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A 2,740 SQ. FT. ADDITION
TO THE “MAIN CENTER” AND A 8,100 SQ. FT. TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE
“SCHOOL” BUILDING. THE ADDITIONS WILL BE USED FOR A LUNCH ROOM,
CONFERENCE CENTER, OFFICE SPACE AND OTHER SCHOOL NEEDS. SITE
IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS AND SIDEWALKS.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 4-93 RIST FROST ASSOCIATES TAX MAP NO. 82-3-1, 82-3-
2, 82-2-6 LOT SIZE: 3.01 AC., 1.44 AC., 1.90 AC. SECTION: 179-20
JON LAPPER, LARRY GOUGE, RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRES.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearings in March and February were tabled, and there is one
tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we proceed, just as an announcement, those people who are here for
either Site Plan No. 25-2000 for William Walker or Site Plan No. 40-2000 for Renald Devine,
both of those applications have been tabled for tonight. So you won’t have to hang around. Okay.
Staff Notes, please.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-2000, Prospect Child & Family Center, Meeting Date: June 27,
2000 “The application for additions to the Prospect Child and Family Care School and Main Facility
was tabled at the May 25, 2000 meeting at the request of the applicant. The tabling request was to
address an area variance request for the North Side “Main Center Addition”. The applicant has
provided revised plans that address some neighborhood concerns. The applicant has received area
variance approvals for the North side “Main Center” (AV54-2000) and the South side “School
Facility” (AV22-2000). The following information is provided for clarification of the entire project and identification
of issues that have been highlighted from the beginning of the proposal February of 2000.
Proposal
The applicant has proposed an 8,100 two-story square foot addition to the existing school facility
(South side of Aviation Road) and a 2,740 square foot one story addition to the "Main Center"
(North side of Aviation Road).
Main Center
The Board and Staff had no additional concerns with the Main Center Addition. The applicant had
supplied information about the Aquatic Therapy pool that addressed filtration and design. The
applicant also indicated that a request would be made to the Town Board for signage, a pedestrian
crosswalk, and a lower speed limit to address pedestrian vehicular conflicts. The Main Center drive
area would remain as a one-way route entering on Aviation Road and exiting on to Mountain View
Lane. The entrance to the Main Center is close to the entrance to the School Facility entrance, and
the exit of the Main Center is to a "T -intersection".
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
School Facility
The applicant has submitted revised information for the School Facility (South side of Aviation
Road). The primary concern on this site was the location of the twenty foot access road connecting
the administration building parking area to the school parking area. The site plan locates the access
road 70 feet away from the rear property line and has provided 75 white pine trees located along the
parking area and access drive.
Lighting
The Board should review the proposed lighting of the site for conforming to the needs of the school
and the needs of the community. Staff would suggest there be no exterior lighting of the second
floor; all lighting should be kept to the first floor buildings. The revised plans show two pole lights
that have changed location from the first proposal. Staff would suggest the poles be lowered to a
maximum 20 foot height measured from the finish grade to the top of the light fixture, the current
plan identifies the total height as 22 feet.
Parking
Staff evaluated the parking calculation for the North and South side. The total number proposed for
the entire project is adequate. The area variance that was granted for the north side parking related
to the number of spaces required for that parcel. The south side parking had the required amount
for the parcel. The applicant was informed the total parking value should be revised to represent 138
spaces instead of 193.
The Planning Board should consider the following item during their review of the application:
1. Parking figures shown on SP-1 (1/20/00, revised 2/22/00) need to be revised for
consistency with the 4/27/00 numbers
2. All lighting shall be kept to the first floor of all buildings
3. Poles shall be lowered to a maximum 20 foot height measured from the finish grade to the
top of the light fixture”
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Just note that the files, I guess, have copies of the variances, most
recent variances. Is this revised site development data correct?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Larry Gouge, Executive Director of the
Prospect Child & Family Center, and Dick Jones, Project Architect. I’d like to make some
preliminary comments. First of all, we had to come back last week to the Zoning Board for the
second time, because when we submitted, neither Mr. Jones or I caught that, not only did the south
addition require a green space variance, but the north did as well, and Laura caught that before we
came back here, and so that took an extra month to apply for that. The reason for that is because, in
the residential zone that this is located in, 65% green space is required, and even though a school is a
permitted use in the zone, there’s no distinction in the area requirements for a school and a single
family residence, and the Zoning Board granted both variance requests, based upon the fact that we
had done stormwater infiltration, so there wasn’t going to be any detriment by having less than 65%
green space. It’s our feeling that perhaps if you’re going to have a school as a permitted use in a
residential zone, which is a totally typical place to put a school, that maybe it should have its own
area requirements for green space, but nevertheless, dealing with it with an Area Variance was fine,
and we’re not too far off from what was required. We were here previously, and we know that we’re
in a residential area, obviously, and we had some neighbors that were concerned. So we’ve had two
lengthy meetings, over an hour and a half each, at the Prospect School with the neighbors, primarily
the neighbors on the south side, on the larger building, who live on Willow Road, on the other side
of the trees from the Center, and we made some pretty significant changes that Dick Jones will go
through with you, as a result of those meetings. I know there are some neighbors here tonight. I
know that some of them are not satisfied, and I don’t think we can do much else to satisfy them, but
I’d like to just make a statement. Much like the fire station that we were here to talk about last week,
a school is another use that is presumed to have a public benefit, and so the New York law respects
that, which doesn’t mean that you don’t have to design your sites to take into account impacts on
neighbors. Of course you do, but it’s still something that’s necessary for the community. I’d like to
just quickly start off with Larry just explaining the mission of Prospect School, who’s served, who the
clients are and what the staffing is, and then we’ll go through the site plan.
MR. GOUGE-Good evening. I’m Larry Gouge, Director of Prospect Child and Family Center.
Prospect Child and Family Center is an agency that’s been providing services to primarily Warren and
Washington County residents for 50 years now, and we provide early intervention services, pre-
school and school age services, as well as therapy and medical services. We provide advocacy and
referral and counseling services. We do have a lot of services to families, because children are part of
families. So we do try to work with the entire family. We also provide warm water therapy for
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
children who have severe Cerebral Palsy and other types of disabilities. The children that we serve
have mental retardation, hearing impairments, vision impairments, physical disabilities, health
impairments and multiple disabilities as well. We do provide services, by way of State mandates, that
are integrated in nature. So we have three classrooms that are integrated, giving children with
disabilities the opportunity to interact with children without disabilities. Over the past several years,
we have experienced a lot of change in the field. It’s a lot more high tech, a lot more equipment.
Children that we served even five years ago, definitely 10 years ago, who were trapped in bodies that
don’t work, now have the ability to access computers, to actually communicate in ways that they
couldn’t before, to control their environments, and that’s one of the major reasons why we are
experiencing some space shortages is because we’re so technology intensive, and we have certainly
grown in primarily providing services in people’s homes in Warren and Washington County, a lot of
services in various headstarts, Warren and Washington Headstart start sites, and we serve 27 school
districts and provide a lot of therapy and other services in those school districts as well. So, just in a
real nutshell, that’s what we do. Day in and day out, that’s our mission.
MR. LAPPER-Just two quick issues. In terms of addressing resident’s concerns, when we were at
the Zoning Board last week, what Dick has on the Board is the north center, which is called the Main
Center, and in response to neighbors’ concern for noise, because the kids, in groups of about 12 kids,
use that green area as a playground. As conditions last week, we agreed that a wooden fence would
be installed from the end of that new addition area to the existing pavilion on the right, coming
around the corner, and then it would be a wooden stockade type fence, on the property line, and
then in front of that, there would be two rows of staggered cedars, a minimum of five feet or six feet,
five feet on center, to help buffer noise and also as a visual buffer, and we believe that satisfied the
neighbors on the north side, and I think they spoke to Craig Brown during the week and indicated
that they were satisfied, and on the south side where we, you’ll recall when we were first here, we
were able to contract for, to purchase an additional parcel of land on the western boundary of the
site, which enabled Mr. Jones to significantly change the layout from what was first proposed, to
leave that large green treed area in the back, so that we could move the parking away from the
residents. We never assumed, at the beginning, that that would be possible, but it turned out that the
neighbors mentioned that there was this 30 foot wide piece of property which, at some point when
the subdivision went in, it was apparently reserved as a potential road to Aviation, but that never
happened. So it was available. We got it under contract, and we were able to change things around.
What you’re going to hear tonight is that some of the neighbors who live adjacent to the Center in
the back are still disturbed that we have that driveway that you see that runs along the back of the
building, and we did everything that we could to accommodate them, but mainly for reasons of site
distance and potential traffic concerns, we can’t have that western driveway as a two way driveway.
It has to go in and drive around the back and come out, and Dick has some photos that will establish
that, but in order to address those concerns, we added, the trees in the back are pine trees. So that
they’re thick on top but at the bottom you can see through them. You guys have probably been to
the site. So we added a whole bunch of white pines, which would be maintained, which would be
trimmed so that they’ll stay low so that they’ll block that visually. Additionally, at one of the
meetings, I raised the issue with a couple of the neighbors right in the back, as to whether or not they
wanted or would be interested in us putting a stockade fence on the back of their property, at the
property line, so that they wouldn’t even have to look at the Center, and what we were told is that
they liked looking at the trees on our property. So we made an attempt to accommodate that,
visually, and offered a fairly expensive fence, because it’s a pretty long distance, but they said that
they weren’t interested in that, and that was also, that was really offered because apparently there’s a
problem in that area that I think I’d mentioned at a previous meeting. This is adjacent to the Glens
Falls Watershed property, and apparently for years, kids have used that for motorcycles and beer
parties, not that it’s an issue during the hours of operation of the School, but because they can get in
there at night, one of the neighbors came to one of our meetings with a big plastic bag full of dirty
beer bottles, and that’s something that is really an enforcement issue. It’s not something that’s
happening on the Prospect School site. It’s happening on the Watershed property, but it’s not really
something we can address, and also they were talking about kids cutting through. So perhaps a fence
on the property line. Even though some of the neighbors indicated that they’d rather look at the
trees, that still might be something if those concerns are raised.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question. On the Zoning Board of Appeals, the last time you went
through. The stockade fence is a condition of their approval. So I don’t know how you’d get around
that.
MR. LAPPER-That’s on the north side, and now we’re talking about the south side.
MR. RINGER-The south side.
MR. MAC EWAN-The other side of Aviation.
MR. VOLLARO-The other side of Aviation? Okay.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. LAPPER-Yes. So the bottom map is the north side. So basically those maps are opposite of
how it looks, if you look at it on the map. The north is on the bottom, and now I’d like to ask Dick
to just go through, show the changes that we have agreed to through our various meetings with the
neighbors.
MR. JONES-Good evening. What I’ll do is I’ll start with the north side. This building is called the
Main Center. Aviation Road to the bottom of the plan, Mountain View to my left. The existing
building sits on the angle that the two roads come together. There’s an existing ingress of Aviation
Road in this location. The exit point is on this location on Mountain View, near the intersection.
Existing parking runs along Aviation, and there is some existing parking up in here. What we’re
proposing is a building addition on the back of the existing building, this “L” shaped addition here. It
is a single story addition. It conforms to all setback requirements. Basic use is for offices for clinical
staff, and there is a small treatment space in there as well. The addition is roughly 2740 square feet.
We’ve incorporated on-site storm drainage for our roof drain system. The existing building is a
single story flat roof structure also. That has a system of existing sub surface drywells that take care
of all of the rainwater runoff from the roofs. The building, as I said, sits this way. We’re proposing a
small addition to the parking lot, and it entails taking the existing little metal storage building that sits
right about where my little finger is and moving it to the back corner, and that allows us to
incorporate seven new spaces in that general area. We’re incorporating a drywell system to collect,
again, all stormwater runoff from that, and basically everything that is being created from new
impermeable surfaces is being infiltrated on site. The area that Jon was talking about, this planted
buffer that the Zoning Board was looking for, will occur from roughly this point to the corner
intersection of the existing pavilion or picnic shelter. We’ll actually put a six foot high wood fence,
solid wood fence, on the back side, and then incorporate a double row of evergreen plantings on the
front side. As far as the lighting that we’re proposing for this site, we’re not proposing any new
lighting on the front side of the building. The only thing that we’re providing lights for, we have an
exit coming out of the building on this side where there’s a corridor coming out, and one here at the
canopy on the back side. We ran all the foot candle levels for the new lighting as proposed, and the
existing lighting, as it currently exists on site, and basically, the foot candle levels, by the time we hit
the front property line, are less than half a foot candle. I believe they’re like a tenth of a foot candle
here at the front property line, a little bit more intense at the entry areas into the building. On the
back side, the foot candle levels along this back property line are less than a tenth of a foot candle, by
the time we get to that planted area. So we feel that the lighting that we’re adding is not intrusive
into the neighborhood area, and again, I think that one of the things, the visual barrier that we’re
doing here on the back side will help with the visual control from those back yards.
MR. RINGER-All that lighting is going to be on the building, there will be no poles back there?
MR. JONES-It’s actually in the soffits at the entry. So it is a down light.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you stick with that first plan for a second?
MR. JONES-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question. I’m sure maybe one or two other ones. The stockade fence or
the wooden fence that you’re going to put up?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-What side of the hedge is that going to be on? I mean, is the fence going to be
against, facing the neighbors, or will the neighbors be looking at the hedge row?
MR. JONES-The fence will be on the property line with the planting buffering the front. That’s
what the Zoning Board was looking for us to do. We’re talking about a solid wood fence. They had
some concerns about the decibel levels of the kids in the back yard. We had gone out and done
some sound levels at that area. We looked at what we would be able to do to actually stop the sound
from this area from migrating into the adjacent back yards, and in order to do that, we would have to
construct a fence somewhere between 12 and 13 feet tall, which we can’t do. It should be a solid
fence, and it should be either within 10 feet of the source of the noise or it should be within 10 feet
of the reception point of the noise. We can’t do that because we’re certainly not going to build the
fence in their back yard. So the only thing we can do is put it on the property line, and we’re looking
to basically soften the front of it with the planting, hoping that we’ll be able to deflect some of the
sound back into the back yard.
MR. MAC EWAN-The additional parking spaces that you’re showing on the east side?
MR. JONES-Yes, these seven.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any additional lighting proposed for that area?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. JONES-We have, currently, lighting right here on the building, which will provide the foot
candles that we need in that area.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s enough to light that up?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions regarding this side?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess I have one question. The existing drawing that I have, I’m looking at,
is dated 1/26. Am I current with the drawing?
MR. JONES-There is two additional revision dates that should be down in the bottom right hand
corner.
MR. VOLLARO-2/22.
MR. JONES-There’s one at 2/22 and then there’s another at 3/8/00.
MR. VOLLARO-I only have it up to 2/22. So I’m not looking at the latest one.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s marked on this one but not the other one.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, this is the north side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-And the south side drawing, I only have it to 2/22, but that’s not important. What
I’m looking for is, on the drawing it says wire fence enclosure. On my drawing, that’s what it says on
the north side of.
MR. JONES-Yes. That’s an existing fence that currently exists on the property line.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, when the Zoning Board did their operation, they didn’t, they talked
about the first condition is that the applicant be required to maintain screening as planned on the
existing drawing. So they didn’t talk about a fence on this particular zoning, for that piece. It’s not
here.
MR. JONES-It’s not shown on this one. We submitted a sketch, the day after the Zoning Board
meeting, with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s Area Variance 54-2000.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now this is, we’re looking at the north side here?
MR. JONES-Yes, this is the north side.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s where they talked about one being a stockade or solid style fence?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s what you’re talking about on this drawing?
MR. JONES-Yes, that is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JONES-And it’s indicated on those small scale drawings that you have, I think, right there in
front of you.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions for the north side?
MR. ABBOTT-Beyond where the fence stops, on the pavilion side.
MR. JONES-Right here.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. ABBOTT-Is that existing planting, or is that all new planting?
MR. JONES-There’s existing planting that runs along the property line, and we have some photos
looking back into the back yards, which I can share with you if you’d like.
MR. ABBOTT-And all the rest of that is existing plantings?
MR. JONES-Yes. There’s a row of trees that comes down through here, and it staggers back and
forth along the property line.
MR. ABBOTT-And how about in front of the new, about where you’re moving the storage?
MR. JONES-Right here. There’s a finger of planting that comes out here. We’re cutting into that to
add the parking, and moving the shed back.
MR. ABBOTT-Okay. So what’s there now is what’s going to stay?
MR. JONES-Yes, right.
MR. ABBOTT-Minus some.
MR. JONES-Right, whatever we have to remove, that’s correct.
MR. ABBOTT-Okay. That’s all I have.
MR. JONES-Any other questions? I’ll talk briefly about the south side. The south side is called
Prospect School. The existing School, Prospect School, sits right here. This is the blue
administration building that sits in this general area. The site, as it currently exists, has a large parking
lot on the east side. It basically will hold about 102 vehicles. There is an existing parking lot on the
west side, which is about in this general area, and it has parking for roughly 25 vehicles. What we’re
proposing is an addition that’ll attach to the west end of the Prospect School. This will be a two
story portion on the front side, a single story portion on the back side. This is a single story building.
The existing Prospect School is a single story building. As part of our development of the site, we’re
basically taking the parking lot on the east side and rearranging the parking, laying it out, so that we
feel that we have better flow and better access through the site. The parking lot on the west will be
expanded, and we’re adding approximately 38 spaces in that parking lot, and then providing a
connecting drive between the two. As Mr. Lapper had indicated, we’ve been through several
variations of the site plan. The original site plan that we had submitted back in January indicated a
drive which was further back on the site, and basically, we were looking at something in the
neighborhood of about 140 feet of separation, or 197 feet, excuse me, at that point. We have been
able to, by purchasing the portion along the west side, push the parking, crush the parking closer to
Aviation Road, which allowed us to take this connecting loop drive and push it closer to the existing
building. We now have 139 foot of separation at the back corner here, and we were basically able to
take this corner and increase the separation from approximately 55 feet to about 70 feet. As part of a
meeting that we had with the neighbors, they had some suggestions in regard to pedestrian traffic
traversing our site and coming into the back area here. They had some concerns about the wash of
headlights that would be coming around and the one way drive that we were proposing. So we had
incorporated this heavy row of planting along what we called the south side of the access drive and
the back side of the existing east parking lot, and then down the east side of that existing parking lot
as well. This we felt enabled us to control the light wash from headlights of vehicles, as well as the
light wash from any on-site lighting. The existing parking lot on the east side currently has two high
poles that have three mercury vapor lights per pole. They had some concerns in regard to the glare
from those. So we’re proposing, as part of the project, to replace the light fixtures, the heads, with
cutoff type fixtures, directing the light down. This enabled us to basically be able to be control the
light wash that we’re getting along the back side and we get back in here, and we’re less than, I
believe, a tenth of a foot candle, roughly a tenth of a foot candle at the back property line. So we
were able to decrease that significantly. On the new parking areas, we’re proposing one new light
pole in this area, to light the upper end of the parking. The lower end of the parking is being lit by
lighting, existing lighting off of the administration building. We have a new wall pack fixture here,
plus some light bollards along the walk. So we’re able to provide sufficient light in this area, and
again, we’re using cutoff fixtures to minimize the wash of all the foot candle levels to a minimum at
the property line. We’re also proposing one light pole here on the back drive area, more as security
type lighting, and again, it’s a cutoff type fixture, and we’re able to control the foot candle levels at
approximately, this point is about a half a foot candle, and by the time we get to the back property
line, we’re to about a tenth of a foot candle in that area, and that’s not taking into account any of the
planting as it currently exists or that we’re actually proposing along that back area. In looking at the
existing parking lot, and bringing this drive around, we had some major concerns about the site
distance looking to the west, or to the left. As you come to this exit on Aviation, there is a building
that sits here, that’s owned by the Glens Falls Watershed, a chlorination building, and it sits very
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
close to the road, and it does create a major problem in looking to the left and exiting from that
drive, and I have some photos that I can show you on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Have you changed the ingress/egress there? Is that both in and out?
MR. JONES-It currently is in and out, but right now we’re just going to have it coming in. We’re
looping around the building this way. So basically this area we’re looking at for parking with the
administration building and the proposed addition. This area remains parking for the existing
Prospect School and some spillover parking from the Center on the opposite side of the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m confused. When you were referring to, that site distance is difficult at that
entrance, why would it be difficult if it’s only going in?
MR. JONES-Well, it’s currently in and out, and that’s why we’re changing it.
MR. LAPPER-What he’s saying is that some of the neighbors had asked if that could be a loop, in
and out, so that we wouldn’t have to have a drive in the back, which would require that left turn.
Why don’t you show that photo now.
MR. JONES-This is a photo, sitting in the car, looking to the west, and you can see, this is that
chlorination building, sitting right out there by the road. It really creates a site distance problem
looking to the west, and that’s why we’re changing it to a one way in only at this location, and that’s
why we have created the loop drive connecting the two parking lots. As I said, the original site plan
that we had had lessen setback to the road. We feel that we’ve been able to mitigate some of the
concerns that the neighbors had on the back. We had to look at, basically, the program needs of the
client, and try to weigh those with the concerns of the neighbors and come up with something that
kind of met in the middle ground, and we feel that we have accomplished that in that regard. That
pretty much describes what we’re doing. We are adding additional planting around the building
addition that we’re proposing, as well as additional planting around some of the existing building, the
Prospect School. We’re also proposing to add street sized maple trees down along the south
shoulder of Aviation Road, to help soften that. In regard to the site itself, this is an existing
playground area for the Prospect School. We have created our new septic field for the building
addition here on the back side. The existing building here is a single story, flat roof structure. Again,
everything is infiltrated in stormwater drywells on site. We’re proposing the same thing for the
building addition. In regard to the paved areas that we are creating, any runoff from that is being
infiltrated in, storm trenches, infiltration trenches, along the low side of the paved areas. Again,
we’re got it ringing along the back side. We know that there were some concerns in regard to the
neighbors, in regard to water that tends to shed and pond into this area in the winter here in the back
side. Currently, it’s green from the back side of the existing building through the trees to the
property line, and what we’re looking to do is basically collect and infiltrate along the perimeter of
the drive. The site itself sheds from a high corner on what would be the northwest corner to the low
side, and it pitches about three feet across the entire site. So everything is shedding to the southeast.
That pretty much describes what we’re doing, and I’d be happy to answer any other questions that
you have on the south side.
MR. RINGER-Mr. Lapper had said that the neighbors rejected a fence on that side because they
wanted to look at the trees, or they enjoyed the view of the trees. What if you put the fence in back
of where you’re going to put the new plantings? Then they would still be able to see the trees and
probably not see the fence.
MR. JONES-We had discussed that as an option. We had not indicated it at this point. When we
had talked with them at one of the neighborhood meetings, we were talking about possibly taking a
wire fence with some type of a gate here connecting into the existing fence, coming off the existing
fence in this area coming across, to try and keep people from migrating through the back of the
property.
MR. RINGER-I was thinking more of a fence.
MR. JONES-Along this area.
MR. RINGER-Yes, and being a stockade, that would prevent the lighting from going up, but it still
would not disturb your view.
MR. JONES-Well, another concern that they had was the security on this roadway or the connecting
drive that we’re creating, and that’s why we were thinking about, if we had to, putting gates in these
locations to stop traffic at night from being able to go through this area.
MR. LAPPER-Because a fence is certainly something that, if that’s what the Board wants, we can
add.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. JONES-And we have discussed it with the neighbors.
MR. RINGER-What concerned me was you indicated that the neighbors objected to the fence
because of the view, but if the fence were put in front, then they’d still have their view, and I’m just
wondering if it was presented in that manner to the neighbors.
MR. JONES-Well, we did talk about locating some type of a fence back here, but it didn’t create
what they felt was a problem with traffic parking out here at night, and that’s why we had talked to
them possibly about instituting some gates at two locations.
MR. RINGER-The kids do that now, they’re going back there.
MR. JONES-They do, yes.
MR. RINGER-I’m waiting to hear from the public hearing on that, too, but, I mean, you had said
one thing, and I’m just wondering an alternative for that.
MR. JONES-Yes. The wooden fence that we were talking about was back on the back property line.
MR. RINGER-Yes, that’s what I understood Mr. Lapper to say, but if you moved, and their
objection was the view, where if you moved it up, that would, it could serve a purpose of eliminating
that light coming through, and they’d still have that view.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. RINGER-But I’d want to hear the public and hear what their concerns are.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had was with the security lights, particularly the one that’s
on the southern most section along the drive. What time would that be going off?
MR. JONES-It’s set up on a motion sensor, so that it would be coming on if someone were coming
through, and we were thinking more of a security type fixture than anything, but we’re not sure that
that would prohibit somebody from driving back here and stopping at night.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I really want to applaud your efforts. I think you have done a
remarkable job, and I think that it’s great that you’ve been able to meet with the neighbors.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-What’s the parking situation now, pretty crowded? I mean, I know we’re trying to
get close to what’s required versus provided, but could we talk a little bit about what the parking
situation is now?
MR. GOUGE-Well, right now we have, this year we moved 42, I think, individuals off our site,
because of parking and space issues. So right now it’s very tight on the north side and fairly good the
rest of the time on the south side with the exception of sometimes early in the morning or late in the
afternoon when staff would come back from meetings and that sort of things, but we need those
people back on the site, obviously, because.
MR. ABBOTT-Okay. So the part of the addition would be bringing these 42 people back?
MR. GOUGE-Yes. The addition would allow the staff to be there, and a lot of them provide
services on our site, and then some of the provide services in other places, but for staff meetings at
the end of the day, and ideally at the morning when they have to get their equipment they need to be
there anyway. So to have them on site makes sense.
MR. LAPPER-So it’s really for peak hour. It’s not there all day, but they need it for peak hour.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. ABBOTT-That’s all for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-The heavy green line you denote on there, is that your limits of clearing?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you planning on plantings some of those white pines within?
MR. JONES-Under the edge of the canopy, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Under the edge of the canopy.
MR. JONES-It’s pretty thin right there on the south side of that east parking lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of thoughts I had. If we could increase the caliper size of the white
pines, which are delineated on your drawings only two to two and a half inch diameter, if they were
three to four inch, they’d be a little bit bigger and they’d be a little bit more mature.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I’m wondering if maybe that it wouldn’t enhance it just as well by having it
bermed. Because you don’t indicate that you’re going to use a berm, and if you had maybe a three
foot berm, that would automatically increase the size, and makes it a better buffer.
MR. JONES-If that would help, it might even help, too, with the drainage and the concerns of the
neighbors to the south side. If we were to do a short berm in that area, it would help control the
flow.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you guys wanted to add?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Craig, if they put a berm there and put those white pines on the berm, then
the white pines, though, give more camouflage when they’re higher up. In other words, don’t they
kind of have a trunk and then when they start getting more mature, and then you would just be
seeing more of the trunk instead of the foliage.
MR. JONES-What we’re looking to do with the new plantings that we’re doing is to be able to top
them out, to keep them from growing tall. We want to maintain the growth on the bottom side of
those trees. Typically, the white pines, once they get to 20 to 30 feet in height, tend to lose the
bottom 10 feet, and that’s what we’re trying to compensate for with that planting on the front side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members, Staff? I’d ask you gentleman
to give up the table for a few minutes. I’ll open up the public hearing. If anyone wants to comment
on this application you’re welcome to do so. I’d ask you to come up and identify yourself and give
your address, please. Any questions you have, direct them toward the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JACEY WILLIAMS
MR. WILLIAMS-Good evening. Jacey Williams, 33 Willow Road. Craig, I think I do understand the
drill here now. So, I appreciate that, I appreciate the warning in the format, and I certainly appreciate
the work of the Planning Staff. They’re here every time, and they’ve been very helpful to me I
procuring some design plans. I want to quickly perceive the concerns I believe you, the Planning
Board, should have about the necessary Prospect School expansion. I’m one of at least three
speakers tonight who feel the Planning Board must address other concerns, the common theme of
which is residential zoning, safety. Question One, the Prospect School campus spans Aviation Road,
north and south. Accordingly, the new plans prudently include a specific pedestrian crosswalk.
Costs of an over bridge, obviously, would be prohibitive. Mountain View Lane, contiguous to the
north campus, is now a primary artery for a traffic flow from the recent sudden surge in growth of
Lehland Estates to the north off West Mountain Road. I am not aware of any specific Aviation
Road traffic studies documenting the impact of this rapidly growing development. Is the Board
aware of such studies? The Aviation Road/Mountain View Lane intersection is in the heart of the
School campus, is it not? Question Two, with respect to the expansion of the south campus, a new
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
one way road to the west of the proposed 35 foot building is a major footprint change. I estimate
routed into this proposed road will be a left hand turn off Aviation. Has a specific traffic study
documented the impact of this left turn on pedestrian crosswalk traffic, and, perhaps more
importantly, has potential intersection gridlock at Aviation and Mountain View Lane been
researched? Is that data available to you, the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-Are you asking for us to answer that question?
MR. WILLIAMS-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Ask all your questions, and we’ll tick them off one by one.
MR. WILLIAMS-Believe it or not, I only have two.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS-I anticipate that many staff members will still enter and exit using the larger
primary eastern parking lot. I assume the Board has the data that shows the highest car accident rate
related to the School in the 1990’s, is in fact to the east of the Mountain View Lane intersection. I
guess that might be a third question. In the new campus, major parking, and Mr. Jones has I think
described that we’re doing 38 new spaces, major parking has been added to the west, and I should
add that our group of concerned citizens were instrumental in procuring added space here for the
School, and we did so hoping a new one way road, impacting Willow Road contiguous homes, would
then become unnecessary. In summary, I have confidence that this Board will entirely study the
impact of a new Mountain View Lane/Aviation Road and proposed one way Prospect Road
automobile pattern. Safety, I know, is one of your major concerns in any growth plan. These two
other major concerns related to the new campus will now be addressed by others, who like I, want to
see this project expand safely within our neighborhood and still preserving the character of quality
living that we have. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
LEVI BROWN
MR. BROWN-My name is Levi Brown. I live at 37 Willow Road, and could I hand out some things
to the Board, if possible?
MR. MAC EWAN-If you’d like to give them to Staff, we’ll take them that way. I mean, we even ask
this of our applicants, Mr. Brown, that they not give us information on the night of a meeting at the
table. Has this been previously submitted to Staff or something?
MR. BROWN-No, because I had submitted some things to the Zoning Board. So I assumed this
was okay, but I guess not. Is that correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-You had given them to the Zoning Board, but there was nothing in our packets,
referencing that. Did you ask that they be distributed to the Planning Board members as well?
MR. BROWN-No, no I didn’t. I handed out some things at the Zoning Board, I believe.
MR. MAC EWAN-Reluctantly, I’ll let you.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Thank you. I’d like to address my comments regarding the south side of
Aviation Road, and as Mr. Lapper said, we requested that Prospect get together with us to meet with
about 15 local residents, and we met on March 9 and again on May 9 and discussed several issues
thth
and some changes were made, but I think most of us feel that some more changes need to be
addressed. First of all, just totally, if you look at the south side, there’s less than five acres, and to do
this new project they’ll remove about an acre of land, and we just feel that the new project with a rear
road, which we think is not necessary, and I’ll explain that later, and it does not include fencing,
contrary to what Mr. Lapper said, I think most of us here tonight would like fencing on the south
side with shrubbery, that would serve as effective noise and visual barriers. So let me be a little more
specific. I know that, recently we met with the Zoning Board regarding variances, but as it stands
right now, the non permeable land on the south side of Aviation Road will increase from 34% to
45.1%, and it does exceed the limits of 35% by 29%, which is a significant amount. I realize that
variances were obtained, but I just want to point this out to this Board here, and like I said,
approximately an acre of trees and vegetation will be removed to complete the project on the south
side as it stands right now, and just some things for you to ponder, that by clearing this land, it will
increase the runoff. As Mr. Jones stated, the land drops about three feet from Aviation Road down
toward the neighbors on Willow Road, one of the neighbors in particular has had flooding in their
basement in the spring, because currently the snow is piled from the big parking lot, and with rains
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
and with the slope, the water collects. The pictures I gave to the Staff shows pictures that we took in
February of ponding in our back yard and other neighbors, and it flows along the side and ponds in
the front of the house. Screening, obviously, removing a lot of trees and putting a road in will
increase the noise and visual pollution from large parking lots and the road and also from Aviation
Road and Prospect’s current buildings and new buildings. The construction of the rear road will
heighten security issues, and I know there’ll be a couple of more people that might speak, and they
might allude to specific concerns about security. Just very quickly, three neighbors on Willow Road
have had break-ins in the last eight years, and nobody knows how those people got there, but it was
hypothesized that maybe people might have parked in the large parking lot, walked through the
woods, and entered the homes then left that way. Because right now it’s an open access area.
There’s a lot of pedestrian and bike traffic that comes from the big parking lot and also the lot to
your right, which is next to the current administration building, there are paths through there for
pedestrians and bikes, and we remind people when we stop them, usually young people, that it’s not
a thoroughfare, but it happens year round, and it happens a lot more when school is out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that the area they’re utilizing that was the old right of way for the proposed
road?
MR. BROWN-The old right of way, I believe, is just on the property that was acquired. There’s a
road that works through there, that then turns west and goes toward West Mountain, and there’s also
motorized bikes that sometimes start in the large parking lot and go east and west through the back
yards. So we’re concerned, as neighbors, about the security issue. Also, there’s a lot of parking there.
We try not to call the police too much because they’re not happy about checking out people that are
parking and drinking and playing their radios loudly, but in the summer, those of us that don’t have
air conditioning, our windows are open, and it’s irritating, at two o’clock in the morning, to hear loud
music. Obviously, the new back road will increase a lot of lights from cars and a little bit of light
maybe from the light pole that Mr. Jones alluded to. So that’s a factor that concerns us. The rear
road, and this is not just a little drive, as some people might indicate, it’s 20 feet wide. Willow Road
is 20 feet wide. It’s 290 feet long. That’s 5800 square feet of black top. That’s a pretty big road.
With that road, and with fewer trees, even if there’s a six foot stockade fence there, you still can see
the buildings, and especially with a large 35 foot building, the therapy center, that will be more
visible. So what I’d like to do is make some proposals. I know Dr. Williams has made some already.
I’d like to add some to that. I am asking you to consider eliminating that back road, because I think
it is unnecessary. It will save a lot of square footage of black top. It will save a lot of money for
Prospect if it’s not there, and I think it will, you know, it will help the neighbors as far as looking at a
fence and/or trees and vegetation rather than a black top road. I would also ask that that enlarged
parking lot to your right on the top map that’s going to involve about 63 spaces, the current lot, as
Mr. Jones said, allows ingress and egress. Yes, there’s a chlorine plant there. Yes, it’s not the best
line of sight, but one of the things I handed you was a Warren County Sheriff’s Department report
that I asked for from 1993 to the present, and if you haven’t had a chance to read this, it says they
took all the accidents that occurred using the Aviation Road/Mountain View Lane line as an
intersection, and on the second page you can see there’s one accident that occurred east of that
intersection that’s about 200 feet away. So that’s well beyond the entrance/exit to that parking lot, a
couple at the intersection, and all the rest of them occurred to the east, I’m sorry. I got it mixed up.
There’s one accident to the west and two at the intersection and the rest to the east of that
intersection. That sort of substantiates the fact that there’s a lot more traffic that comes down
Aviation going west and turns on Mountain View and does not continue. It also indicates that that
particular exit to that parking lot was constructed in 1993 is safe because there’s never been an
accident there. So, I think if you look from a safety point of view, it’s been safe for seven years, and
if people are little careful leaving, then it should continue to be safe. I also put the Planning Board
minutes in that I summarized and I summarized them as best I could, from April ’93 when this
Board approved the current administration building and the small parking lot that currently exists,
the 25 spaces, and in that it says that the access is to be 24 feet wide and access to the site should not
be a problem. So, my proposal is for you to consider eliminating the back road and allowing ingress
and egress parking on that administration parking lot. Also I think something for the benefit of
everyone is to approach either the County or Town or State Highway Departments to have them
erect a 25 mile per hour speed limit before the School on the east side and west side to slow people
down, because that’s a pretty busy intersection. I would also ask that you consider requiring them to
erect a six or eight foot stockade fence at the rear of the property, so that it will absorb some of the
sound and it will also be a visual barrier as well. Also, I think it was mentioned about white pines.
True, they are, as Mrs. LaBombard said, if they’re left unattended, they will grow high. The bottom
branches will drop out. If they’re trimmed, as a couple of our neighbors might tell you, they’ve
planted white pines. They’ve trimmed them about 10 feet high, but over a period a few years, the
lower branches still will die off. So, rather than the white pines, it would be better to have some
hemlock shrubs or arborvitae or something like that that, whose lower branches won’t drop off. I
know that the people from Prospect mentioned installing security gates, which is something we agree
with and we would hope that you would include that, and we would hope that you would, if there is a
rear road, the lighting would be eliminated because if it’s dark cars will turn on their lights, and
there’s no need for a light. As was mentioned before, the lights on the east parking lot, the large east
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
parking lot, there’s a lot of spillage of light. You can stand down to the end of Willow Road and see
lights from the School. So that shines quite a bit now. In conclusion, I just want to point out that
all of us in that area live in a single family residential area, including Prospect School, and we would
hope that all of the people that reside there would comply with the regulations. Omitting the rear
road will not create a safety hazard, nor will it negatively impact employees entering and exiting
parking lots. In fact it will lessen the impact and congestion on the large parking lot, because if
you’re filtering everybody to one exit, which is on the east side of Mountain View, where most of the
traffic is, that might create a more dangerous situation than having two exits as it currently is. There
are 68 single family homes that are within 500 feet of Prospect School. That’s a considerable
amount. So I would hope that you’d consider my proposals, and if you have any questions now I’ll
try to answer them as best I can.
MR. VOLLARO-I have one, if I could. There’s only one light pole that sits on the back of that
building. It starts off with 7.5 candles on the ground, and ultimately it gets out to the property line at
.01. That doesn’t seem to me, particularly with the type of lens that they’re using, the downward
lens, and I don’t see any spillage over the line, I don’t see why that particular light pole is in question.
I don’t see it. In looking at the light distribution that Dick has given, I don’t see that there’s a great
amount of light concentration up near the perimeter from that particular pole. You were concerned
about that.
MR. BROWN-No, I was concerned, I think they mentioned that there was a light on that back, that
proposed back road.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the one I’m talking about. It’s 7.5 candles on the ground, light pole right on
the north side of that road.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, I’m just concerned that none of us would want lights that are similar to
what’s in the current large parking lot to the east, because that’s quite visible, especially in the winter.
You pull your shades in the back of the house because the light shines in.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s interesting. Because this light chart doesn’t really show that. It shows that
up near the perimeter, which is just south of the big lot, that the light is only .12, which isn’t very
much. It starts off at 10 candles at the light itself.
MR. BROWN-In the current parking lot?
MR. RINGER-I think he’s saying he’s looking at it directly and he’s seeing through the woods in the
winter time.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, but the problem is, you know, trying to keep, I think they’ve done a good
job of distributing the light and not having spillage past the line. The fact that they can see it from
the houses, they’ve always seen it from the houses.
MR. RINGER-Right, Bob, but he’s making that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s move this along. Go ahead, Cathy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Somebody refresh my memory. When was that parking, the east parking lot
and the original building on the south side of Aviation Road constructed?
MR. BROWN-I’m not sure. I think it was in the 70’s.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that was all done before Willow Road and the Pines?
MR. BROWN-Definitely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought so.
MR. BROWN-And contrary to some comments that have been made previously, we don’t want
Prospect to go away. When we moved there, we realized they were there. It was fine with us.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you didn’t get the head lamps from Day One when you moved in there?
MR. BROWN-Well, they enlarged the parking lot to the east four years ago, and that created a
problem for the neighbor on my right, 1996.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But there was always a smaller parking lot on the east, wasn’t there?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. BROWN-I believe so, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I have another question. I wish I could walk in your backyards. It’s
been a while since I’ve been over to Mr. Gottlieb’s house, but is there a buffer from your back yard
property lines to the property line of the Prospect School? Do you have your own natural buffer
that, how can I say this, you know how you have your back yard.
MR. BROWN-Grassy area and trees, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then, are you all clear cut right to your property line, or do you have
maybe 30 or 40 more feet to go?
MR. BROWN-I would say the four neighbors involved, their back yards were the same depth, but
some of us have more grass than others. My yard, for example, I think there’s about 20 feet from the
end of my grass to the property line, and I’m on the end where the road comes the closest. So I can
see, well, you didn’t get a chance to see the photographs, but I took a picture of where the picnic
table is, where they come out for lunch, the employees, and it’s very visible, even in the summer,
from my back slider.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just feel like you’re bringing up all these issues now, at this point, when this
has been on the docket for six months. Number One is you don’t want the road there. If you had
your druthers, you’d want to get rid of that?
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s true.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s Number One. I just want to make sure I’m hearing you
correctly. Okay. The second thing is, since the parking lot got bigger, four years ago, you feel more
of the impact now?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that has nothing to do, though, with the new building coming on. I
mean, that parking lot’s there. It’s been there for four years. That parking lot isn’t changing, and
what the applicant is proposing to do is even readjust the lighting to make it more conducive for
your, so there’s really nothing we can do about that east side parking lot, because that’s been there.
Right?
MR. BROWN-Well, yes, and it was enhanced four years ago, like you said.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but that parking lot has nothing to do, I’ve got to make sure we’re on
the same page here, that parking lot has nothing to do, though, with the new proposed addition,
because it’s there.
MR. BROWN-Right. They’ll realign the parking, but the square footage will remain the same, but I
just want to point out very quickly that that new parking lot is mostly behind Mr. Gottlieb’s property,
and as you notice, I think it’s probably within 10 feet, that that southeast corner is probably within 10
feet of the property line, and with the plowing in the winter, the snow spills over into his land. So
there’s an existing problem.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I understand. Now the third thing is you’re concerned about the
accidents and the safety factor on Aviation Road. That has really nothing to do with your street.
That’s because you’re good citizens and you’re concerned, but if you, if we, if the applicant takes out
that back road, then, for that west parking lot, they’re going to have to have an ingress and egress
there, and if you look at the pictures, and you stand there, there is no way in the world you’re going
to be able to come out of there and make a left hand turn, up Aviation Road. So then right away
you’re asking for trouble, and the fourth thing is, you speak about accidents. I’m driving around
Town yesterday, and maybe some of you even read my letter to the Editor in the paper a few days
ago, but the whole Town is an accident waiting to happen. You can’t just single out this road. I
came out of Lowe’s, and I couldn’t even come out yesterday, because there’s a massive crash, two
cars totaled, coming out of Glenwood Avenue and Bay Road. Then I go up Bay Road, a half hour
later, you should have seen the accident on Sherman Avenue and West Mountain. So what I’m
trying to say is that I just feel that, you want one thing, but you want a lot of things here, and I don’t
know if we’re going to be able to do all that.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Thank you very much.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Mr. Brown. Anyone else?
MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll read that in last.
DOUG EUNICE
MR. EUNICE-Good evening. I’m Doug Eunice, and I’m on 39 Willow Road, right next to Mr.
Brown. We are concerned, basically, with the back road, okay. It is going to be. We’ve already been
broken in to. People come from the woods, into our land. Okay. When you have this back road,
it’s going to create more traffic down there. It’s going to create more security problems. Okay. You
have illegal activities back there, beer drinking, pot or whatever, right in the back woods. When we
first moved there, the kids were upset that we had a house. So they set a mattress on fire in the back
woods. We had to go out, two, three o’clock in the morning, stop it, following morning, there was a
tree on the side of our garage, and this is going to create more of this. Also, it’s a nice drag strip.
You have a 22 foot road, you get the ATV’s out there. They’re going to race. Accidents happen.
Prospect School is going to be liable for any kids that do get hurt, that get killed, you know,
whatever, maimed. So they are going to be liable for that. The gate, they want to put a gate up there,
when, when there’s an accident that happens? When people are coming in there? We’ve been in the
area for 14 years, and this thing is going to destroy the property. It’s going to destroy values up
there. We pay a lot of taxes in here, and there’s no reason for that back road. If I went to Prospect
School and I parked there, I’m not going to go half way around the School to go out to another road.
I’m going to make an illegal turn and pull out, you know, instead of coming, you know, the wrong
way, and I think that this is ludicrous. It’s going to cost Prospect School money for maintenance,
security and the whole thing, and I think you people should either table this back road, eliminate it or
whatever, but I just feel, as a concerned citizen, that there’s no place in the forest. To look out in
your back yard and to see a road, no. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much.
MICHELLE GOTTLIEB
MRS. GOTTLIEB-Good evening. My name is Michelle Gottlieb, and I live directly in back of the
south side lot, and our residence has had three floods in the last 12 years that we’ve lived there, and
the reason being I invite any of you to come, because you will see the drop in the ground level, and
the snow has been piled up over 20 feet high, every single winter. The rain that has occurred and the
slope coming down to our basement, we’ve had anywhere from two to four inches, and each time, of
course, total carpeting in the entire basement on both the finished and the unfinished sides have had
to be done. So that is something, please, to consider, that you said, well, the parking lot was installed,
let’s say whatever, five, six years ago, and that’s not an issue. It is an issue because when you add
additional pavement or blacktop, you’re talking about runoff to the development behind. So whether
that was done five years ago or you’re putting the new addition on now, you must be concerned with
the water level and the water table, and I invite any of you to come into our back yard. Secondly, I’m
very concerned about security, because the beer bottles that I brought to the one meeting were not
picked up by the woods, let’s say 100 feet away, but I’ve continually cleaned up the lot between our
house and the School. Every weekend I’m out there cleaning up, only because I care about the land,
and I’m not going to say, well, it’s the School’s problem. So continually you have kids out there from
midnight to four a.m., and how do I know? Because my bedroom’s in the back and the police come
and they get them out there. This is a major hang out of teenagers with cars, and I will also say, too,
I’m not going to tell you how many times with drugs, or if there’s a record as far as Sheriff’s picking
them up or smoking grass or whatever, but just come to my back yard, and if you were a child of the
60’s, come and smell marijuana, okay, and you can tell that they’ve been back there. So, I am
concerned for safety. So that would be one concern as far as, would you have gates, security gates,
so you can’t have kids riding in and out, especially if you had a road back there. So please, someone
would have to check that police record, but we can tell you that there’s numerous children there, or
teenagers on the weekends. The third issue I have is lighting. I invite any of you to come to my
bedroom. It is bright light at three a.m. from that large light that reflects into our back yard. At any
time come and see that. So I do truly advise that there should be shields or whatever put around the
light, but again, come to 35 Willow Road at two in the morning, and you’ll see it’s bright as day. So,
just to sum up, because you’ve heard a lot of these issues before, please think carefully, because you
certainly wouldn’t want to make a mistake with any of the decisions that you do have to make, where
neighbors come back and we say, it’s not just the 35 Willow Road basin that’s flooded, but you’ve got
four or five other neighbors’ basements flooded, and, yes, we really do want the School as a
neighbor, but we have to at least address these issues, because, if nothing else, I can tell you that
these things have occurred, and I’d be happy to supply any legal documents or insurance paperwork
to let you know it has occurred. I truly cannot speak as far as the traffic pattern, but I will tell you
that a road in back of the School, to me, is a safety issue, not just for the neighbors, for the school
children themselves at the School. Again, I thank you so much for your time.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. How does this sound for a stipulation? That there would
be some kind of snow removal in the winter time, in the parking lot, like they remove snow around
various places in Town, so that you would not get that melting and the runoff?
MR. VOLLARO-How are you going to do that?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know, Cathy. That’s something we should discuss, if we ever get to the
point where we’re going to do a resolution. Not to indicate that that would be part of something
we’d entertain. I mean, we have to look at the overall site plan here and make sure that it’s going to
work in all aspects of it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And also, this is something I don’t understand. I would have thought with a
school there, that that would be a deterrent for kids to drink and party? I would think that if there
wasn’t any building there and it was all wooded or whatever, then that would be more accessible for
the kids, but the fact that the School is there and there’s probably night maintenance or different
things, that doesn’t keep the kids away at all?
MRS. GOTTLIEB-No. I mean, really, when the School closes, I’m going to say to you like let’s say,
three, four o’clock, it’s totally empty and barren, and all the time you have teenagers. I’m going to
say it’s like a great meeting place for kids with cars. Okay, meet you at Prospect School, and I can’t
tell you how many nights we’re awakened at night because they’re in there, and, you know, we’ll call
the police or we’ll go out there and we’ll try to chase them away, but it has been ongoing since the 12,
13 years that we’ve lived there. Now even with the bright candle light, this is not like New York City
or the City of Montreal. You do not have an extensive police department patrolling every parking lot
here in Queensbury or Glens Falls, but I welcome any of you to come on a weekend and just stay
over, and you’ll see for yourselves. You’ll see the cars pulling in and out of that lot, and we, Art and
I try to chase them away, and we do call the police. The other thing, too, is that, if you’re going to
have a back drive like that, I really think you’re going to even encourage more, then, because
teenagers are going to find that a lot of fun, if they can get in easily, to drive around to the back of
the building, and then we mentioned previously, too, you have a back road. I wonder about the
security of the building. If it’s in the back, and a car is in the back, there’s going to be a place in that
building that they cannot see, in other words, from the front road of Aviation, you will not be able to
see kids in the back, and that will be behind like let’s say where Levi’s property is, next door to us, or
on the Eunice’s property. When you build, and you have that road back there, it’ll be blocked. You
will not see those kids in the back, and again, we’re back there. Every weekend you just come on
over about midnight, one, two, and you’ll see three, four, five congregating. Sometimes they stay
there for three, four hours and nobody chases them away, and they don’t listen. So, again, to me,
security will be an issue, especially when you’re going to have a roadway blocked by a building.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know, over the years, I’ve been here for a long time. We’ve gotten
the kids out of Butler Pond area. We’ve gotten the kids out of the trails in Crandall Park. I don’t
know why we can’t get them out of here. I mean, I would think that.
MR. RINGER-We haven’t gotten them out of there. They’re still there, Cathy. I’m up there putting
a lot of fires out.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
MRS. GOTTLIEB-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to ask Mrs. Gottlieb a question. Exactly where is, in terms of that
back line, are you to the east or to the west of that line?
MR. MAC EWAN-Their house, I think, is the closest to that, where the parking lot comes close to
the back lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see.
MRS. GOTTLIEB-In fact, the buffer is small. We do have woods, but again, remember, behind our
houses are all those tall, toothpick pine trees, do you know what I’m saying? So we probably have
the least buffer of anyone, as far as the property. So that’s why I’m back there cleaning up.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. You’ve got a letter?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I do. This is attention to all of the Board members. “To Whom It May
Concern: We would like to register our objection regarding several proposed items in the 10-2000
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
Site Plan for the Prospect Child and Family Center. This project is located in an SFR-1A zoning
area, which requires all property to be 65% permeable. While we recognize the need for additional
space for their clients and staff, the Prospect Child and Family Center can still provide adequate
accommodations for their staff and visitors by eliminating the connecting roadway proposed for their
south campus. Specifically, we are referring to plans for a roadway behind the rear of their buildings
on the south side of Aviation Road. Omitting this roadway would reduce the amount of non-
permeable land proposed for this project. Excluding the rear roadway, which is 290’ long and 20’
wide, involves approximately 5,800-sf. ft. of land. This would reduce the percentage of non-
permeable land for the South campus from approximately 45.1% to 42.3%. The elimination of this
roadway would also allow many trees to be spared, allowing the current trees to remain as sound and
visual barriers. At the present time, both parking lots on the South side of Aviation Road allow
ingress and egress without any traffic problems. At two recent meetings requested by neighboring
homeowners, Prospect School officials have stated that there have been no automobile accidents at
the entrance/exit from their Administration Building parking area, which is located on the western
edge of their property line, south of Aviation Road. This traffic pattern could continue without
creating any traffic safety issues. At meetings with Prospect School officials on March 9, 2000 and
May 9, 2000, school representatives indicated to approximately 15 neighborhood residents that
instead of the planting of approximately 75 white pine trees, they would be willing to erect an 8’
stockade fence and plant cedar/hemlock shrubbery near the rear of their property on the south side
of Aviation Road. We would request that this be added to the proposed site plan. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide you with alternatives to the proposed Site Plan. These proposals could help
to more nearly comply with the permeability requirements for all the land parcels that are located
within the SFR-1A zones and would lessen the environmental impact on the surrounding residences.
We believe that all landowners that are part of the SFR-1A zone should comply with the standards
set forth in the Town of Queensbury Code Book. Sixty-eight single-family home are located within
500’ of the Prospect School’s perimeter. We must all recognize that the rights of single family
residences must be protected and that the actions of one neighbor should not be permitted it if
would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding residents. Respectfully submitted, Levi H.
Brown Jacqueline L. Brown”
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other letters or correspondence?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. LAPPER-Just a couple of preliminary comments. It’s certainly typical, in the area nationally,
that you have, that you put schools in the middle of residential areas. So there’s nothing unusual
about that. You want to have school kids in proximity to where they live, and as an example, the
Indian Ridge project that I know little about, but I know that that was a new project proposed to go
next to the Queensbury School. So people weren’t avoiding it, in terms of residential development.
It’s typical. A lot of the issues that were raised are issues that we heard before and that we have tried
to address, and that we can probably do some other things to address. So just quickly, we had a
meeting, it was mentioned a couple of times, with at least 15 families, and the fact that the only
people that are here tonight are the people who directly access the property I think is positive, that
the other people were satisfied. Obviously, it’s our job and your job to try and make this the best
plan we can, to protect the neighbors who are adjacent, but the fact that there are a lot fewer people
here is a positive thing. I think that the neighbors who are here missed the point about lighting that
Mr. Vollaro was talking about, that we are proposing to replace the lights that are there now with the
more modern design standards of the Town, which will make it a better situation than what exists
right now, as part of this project, and in terms of the security, the fact that, we recognize that there’s
an issue that has to be addressed, in terms of kids hanging out there, but it’s certainly not something
that the School is inviting anybody. It’s an attractive nuisance, if you will, because it’s a parking lot
that is not utilized at night by the facility. What Dick alluded to was that if we put in gates at either
end of the rear drive, and lock it at night, it would just keep anybody off of there, and perhaps that
would help address that, but to the extent that kids are having beer parties in the back, perhaps the
way to address that is to talk about fencing, as Mr. Ringer said, which we could do on the back of
that parking lot, behind the plantings, or in the middle of the plantings, or whatever is appropriate, to
make it harder for people to cross there. Nevertheless, they still have the watershed property which
we have no control over. So, regardless, that’s an enforcement issue for the police, but if you want
us to add a fence, that will probably help. In terms of the flooding, Dick explained that there will be
added an infiltration trench along the whole back, and what the Chairman said about a three foot
berm, that would also help. So if we added that, that would also address it. Part of it is it’s a natural
drainage pattern. It’s not just the Prospect site but it’s the whole, it’s water coming across the
watershed property and draining that way, too, which is something that is just natural topography.
We can deal with our site. We can’t completely eliminate that, if it’s coming from elsewhere. Most
of the comments had to do with what the neighbors consider a back road, and the reason why, I
mean, it’s a driveway. It’s a one way drive, just so the people that are parked on the administration
site can exit on the east side, and it’s 20 feet wide because that’s what Town standards are for a
driveway, but we think that if we do two rows of plantings, plus a berm, perhaps a fence. People are
not going to be impacted visually. They’re not going to see it, and this is, people aren’t going to be
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
using it, certainly, the facility’s not used at night, except for very infrequently, when they have some
respite, the respite’s on the other side. So that side is not used at night, Larry just informed me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Didn’t you say, back in, was it March, February, that part of this new building is
going to be for therapy, whirlpools and stuff like that in there? Did you not say that?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And didn’t you also say that you were having evening hours for clientele?
MR. GOUGE-To the best of my knowledge, the only significant evening hours would be the respite
program. One runs until eight o’clock on Wednesday, and the other until 9:45 on Friday, and that’s
on the north side. On the south side, where we would be adding the aquatic therapy center, there
really hasn’t been any discussions about when we would provide therapy, other than the day time. It
seems to me it would be maybe late afternoon, but not into the evening hours, at least there’s been
no discussions along that, certainly not at nine or ten o’clock at night.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-As I was saying, so if that driveway is buffered with plantings, and it was discussed
that maybe it should be a mix of cedars and hemlock, and, Dick, is there any issue with that, in terms
of species? I mean, we could go with whatever the Board wants to see, in terms of the species, and if
we put gates there, it would certainly keep people away. In terms of the, I don’t know if people
congregate in the area because it’s lighted or because it’s not lighted. I just don’t know because I
don’t live on that side of Town, but if we have the lights, as Dick had said, with sensors, so that
would go on, right now they don’t have sensors, and right now, and are they on all night? So right
now the lights which are admittedly too bright because they were built under old design standards,
they’re on all night, so the new proposal would be that they would be on sensors so they would be
off, unless somebody came in the parking lot, which would certainly indicate that somebody was
doing something that they shouldn’t, but they wouldn’t be able to congregate by that driveway,
because that could be gated if that’s what the Board wants to see.
MR. MAC EWAN-How much pedestrian traffic utilizes that crosswalk between the two parcels?
MR. GOUGE-There’s no children ever. We don’t do that, with the exception of, we have one night
a year we have a Halloween event where people park over there, and we have the Sheriff’s
Department come and direct traffic. As far as staff goes, with the increased parking on the north
side, it would be reduced some. I don’t have an exact number, but it is used in the mornings and the
afternoons, too, for staff crossing back and forth.
MR. LAPPER-Are you talking about a dozen people, two dozen people?
MR. GOUGE-I’d say probably closer to two dozen. We do have a mail delivery three times a day,
where a maintenance person takes mail to the, interagency mail, we use it for that type of purpose.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-If kids were moved, they’d be in a van or car, between the facilities.
MR. GOUGE-Yes. Very unlikely that children are moved. They do occur some for the respite
programs and others, and they’re moved in cars only. We don’t have children crossing there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. LAPPER-Most of what Mr. Brown said, with the exception of eliminating the driveway, and the
picture speaks many words. I mean, we’re looking at that as an absolute safety issue, and whether or
not there have been accidents, doesn’t mean that it’s not a safety issue, and you saw for yourself what
we have there with site distance, but aside from that, reducing the speed limit, if the Town Board
wanted to do that, certainly, we have no problem and would support that. The six foot stockade
fence at the rear, behind the plants, that’s fine. Cedars or Hemlocks instead of pines is fine. Security
gates, we’d offer that, and instead of the no light on the rear drive, I think Mr. Vollaro addressed
that, in terms of the foot candles, and that would also be on a sensor. So, unless somebody was
there, and they would be gated out at night, but that would be the only issue. So I think that we can
consent to everything, really, that he’s requesting, except for eliminating that drive, and we just don’t
see that as a big impact because it would only be during the day.
MR. WILLIAMS-How do you know that?
MR. LAPPER-It would be gated at night when the facility was closed.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-My concern in making a gate as part of a condition is any kind of condition of
approval is the enforceability of it. If we were to put a motion together that was inclusive of the
security gate be locked between such and such hours, and for whatever reason, through lack of
communication within your organization, it doesn’t get locked, and it becomes a repeated problem, it
becomes an enforcement problem, and a difficult one at that, to.
MR. LAPPER-Well, what’s different about here is that they have a security staff, and so someone is
there until 10. So just in terms of running a school, there’s all sorts of security policies. So compared
to like a business, where it might just be some family owned private business, as a school, they have
all sorts of safety regulations, and if they just implement that, that the gate will be locked every night
at a certain hour, you know, be it six or seven or whatever, I think that we would agree to that, and
we could control that.
MR. GOUGE-As part of our regular routine, we have a maintenance person who gets there at six or
six thirty, depending on the season, and unlocks all of the gates. We keep chains on them and keep
the unlocked lock there. So children can’t leave those gated areas, but in case of a need to egress in
an emergency, they are unlocked, and then they’re unlocked every evening, and that’s part of the
maintenance routine. So that could be added to the routine, and I think it would at least, I see no
reason why we couldn’t implement it. We haven’t had problems doing that in the past for our other
gates.
MR. RINGER-How much additional traffic do you envision as a result of this addition, percent if
you’ve got it, can give it to me?
MR. JONES-Currently they have 40 people off site, and they’re housed in a temporary office space
down off of Aviation Road, down near the Ramada Inn, down in there. Some of that staff, during
the day, does come back to the Center. So they’re in and out. What we would be looking at, rather
than having that staff report to the office space off site, in the morning they would be coming to the
facility. Some would stay there for part of the day. Others would initially go to the site and then
leave and then come back in the afternoon. So to say that there’s an impact or a quantity, I don’t
know how we would quantify that. There would probably be, possibly, in the morning, 20 to 30,
maybe, initially, if that.
MR. RINGER-And how many of those would be using the south parking lot?
MR. JONES-Probably all of those, yes, because the structure that we’re looking at on the south side
is basically for the therapy staff, it’s office space for them.
MR. RINGER-The only reason for this drive is that it’s a bad exit out?
MR. JONES-We feel it’s a bad exit coming out onto Aviation Road.
MR. RINGER-I feel it’s a bad exit, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t mean to interrupt, but do you have a measurement of what the line of
sight actually is, and what would be recommended for that speed limit?
MR. JONES-It’s probably about 130 feet, to the left or the west.
MR. RINGER-You’ve got to nose out there.
MR. JONES-Yes. You really have to.
MR. HUNSINGER-And what would be required for a safe egress?
MR. JONES-I would say probably 180 to 200. I don’t have the numbers. I don’t know if Laura can
help on that or not.
MRS. RYBA-It usually depends on the speed limit of the road, too.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-We were just calculating that, comparing it to the Fire Company, because they had
those numbers on Bay here where it’s a 45 mile an hour speed limit, and it was 260 required, and
here, a 35 mile an hour speed limit, Dick’s estimating around 180 to 200.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I feel the same way. I was just wondering if we had some numbers to
sort of confirm that. I’m sorry, Larry, I didn’t mean to interrupt.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. RINGER-There’s no way to move that driveway further to the east, so you could get a better
sight distance?
MR. JONES-No. I think we’d have to move it halfway in to the center of the property, and the
buildings prohibit that.
MR. METIVIER-What about putting it to the front? I know we don’t want a lot of roads on the
front, but what about in the front of the building?
MR. LAPPER-In order to do that, if you were going to curve it around, there’s just not that much
room between the property line and the administration building that’s there. So I think we’re
constrained, and there’s a septic system there, but, I mean, not that that couldn’t be addressed, but
do you want to address that?
MR. JONES-We have an interconnecting walkway that goes from the front of the Administration
Building down across the front of Prospect School, and also in that area we have two septic systems,
one for the Administration Building. There is a septic system for part of Prospect School, and we
also have a small gated area in front of the existing portion of Prospect School, where we have some
exit doors, so that we don’t have children coming out toward Aviation Road, if they should wander
out a door, and we also have some drywells in there for our storm drainage infiltration. So we’ve got
a lot of things happening in there.
MR. LAPPER-I think we should also point out that most people are going to use the east parking
lot, because there’s only 35 spaces in the new parking lot, and Dick didn’t go through the ingress and
egress, but on the existing east parking lot, which is going to be reconfigured, all the buses, there
would be the bus entrance is the one to the west side of that east parking lot, and there’s an ingress
and egress on the east side of the east parking lot. So it’s not like there’s going to be a considerable
amount of traffic on that drive. It’s a 35 car parking lot, and probably some of those people are
going to be there driving in the morning and drive out at night.
MR. VOLLARO-Would it be an inconvenience if the primary parking was done on the big lot? In
other words, can you enter the building from that lot, if you were to go to work in the morning, as
staff, park in that lot, and get into the building and be able to get into any other portion of the
building? A little bit more of a walk for some people, but what I’m trying to get at is eliminating that,
some of that parking that’s on the west side, and use the big lot as the primary parking lot?
MR. LAPPER-Not eliminate the number of spaces, but use it as less frequently as possible is what
you’re saying?
MR. VOLLARO-How do you do that? If it’s there, they’ll park there. I mean, I don’t know, I’m
trying to say that what we do is we create this lot as the main parking lot on the south side of
Aviation Road.
MR. LAPPER-Unfortunately, we’ve got this down to where we need every single spot. We went
through this with the Zoning Board. Just in terms of, not just counting what the standards would be
in the Town Code, but in terms of the number of employees, and leaving sufficient number of visitor
spaces. They’re not trying to build any excess or have a bunch of black top they don’t need. This is
as tight, according to Larry, as he can have to accommodate everybody. So we really need those 35
spaces.
MR. GOUGE-I’m not concerned about the, I mean, we currently have a number of staff that we
have requested, and they do comply, with parking on the far west parking lot, because what happens
is there’s not enough space for folks, and we then have parents and others unable to find parking. So
we could certainly have, and I think it would be pretty natural for the east parking lot to fill up first.
MR. RINGER-You stack your buses on the east side, too. Don’t you?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-I mean, when the buses come in, I’ve been up there, when I tried to check the space,
and at a particular time, three o’clock or, the buses are all stacked there, and so if you put all your
parking over there.
MR. VOLLARO-Could I make a, we’re brainstorming here, obviously, what we’re trying to do. Let’s
say that we close off this entrance to where it says enter only, completely, and use the main parking
lot, leave the road there, put a big cul de sac at the other end of that road as a turnaround, so that
cars can come in there, can get back out again, back into the big lot, and out the exit/enter area. The
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
buses still have their enter only, but you create a large cul de sac on what would be the west side of
the property. So cars can turn, a big turnaround.
MR. LAPPER-So that would be a two way, the drive would then be two way, is what you’re saying?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the drive would then be two ways.
MR. JONES-The point of access right now onto Aviation, you’re saying close it off and put a cul de
sac there?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-But, Bob, you’d be doubling your traffic that would show out (lost words) back on to
Willow.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s two pounds in a one pound bag, Larry, trying to.
MR. RINGER-You know, I mean, the concern for having this driveway is the people on Willow, and
if we did that, we’d double the traffic, the people on Willow would have double the traffic.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, as far as the traffic is concerned, one of the things that came across my mind
was a speed bump, because somebody talked about cars racing back and forth on that roughly 100
foot stretch.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. In terms of addressing your first comment, that may be something that we
could do. What that would do is it would really discourage people from using that western lot,
because they’d pull in to the eastern lot. That would be their only possibility, what you’re saying, that
would be the only ingress, and if they couldn’t find a space, they would then go around the back to
get to the remote lot, and they would then have to come back out, because there would be grass and
trees in the front. There wouldn’t be an entrance or an exit.
MR. VOLLARO-That would eliminate the hazardous left hand turn if you ever got into that. That
would eliminate it all together, and your prime ingress/egress would be to the big lot.
MR. RINGER-I’d have a hard time supporting that because that would just double all the problems
for the people on Willow.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t understand why it would.
MR. RINGER-Because you’re going to put all that traffic now is going to go up there, turn around
to that cul de sac and come back out again.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if we’ve got the proper screening back here, and you’ve got a fence, and if
you do berm it, you’re talking about headlights interfering with them and so on?
MR. RINGER-I would rather just leave the driveway there. At least they’re only going to go through
once. They’re not going to go in and turn around and come back out.
MR. LAPPER-We’re willing to do that, if that’s what the Board wants.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why couldn’t you just say right turn only? Or would people use it for, the
west entrance there, to say no ingress, and coming out with a right turn only?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll give you two examples of places that don’t have any right turns or left turns.
One of them is Lowe’s on Quaker Road, and the other one is Burger King, and a third one is
McDonald’s. It doesn’t work.
MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m confused with the light situation. Why would you ever have to go to
that rear parking lot in the evening? Every time I go by Prospect School at four o’clock there’s not a
car there. So, if you’re gating it off in the back, there’s no need for a car to be back there. So what’s
the issue with a vehicle’s lights, or even doubling traffic back there? The lights are not going to be
on, or effect you during the day. It’s only at night, and you’re not using that back parking lot at
night?
MR. GOUGE-No. It’s not really currently used, and there’s no plans to use it. Perhaps an
occasional staff person in the winter time staying until 5:15, 5:30, something like that.
MR. METIVIER-It’s almost a non issue.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. LAPPER-There’s not going to be headlights because it’s not used at night.
MR. METIVIER-Correct. I mean, if we’re doing all this to distract headlights, I mean, I just can’t
foresee why you’d even have headlights back there at night, and the gate, which, if you have a gate
and the gate’s closed, no one’s going to go back there anyway. So it makes no sense to even discuss
that because it really is a non issue, in my eyes, anyway, and as far as the fencing in the back, that may
be just enough deterrent for kids to just stay away from there. I mean, there’s no fencing now, that it
is a deep parking lot. You go back there, and you are away from the road. They might have to move
up the road, but there again, I mean, it just seems like it’s a non issue.
MR. LAPPER-Well, just like what you’re saying now. If you’re in the parking lot you can see
through their houses. You know where you’re going to walk. If we have a berm and plants and a
fence, you’re not going to see it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think they’ve addressed most of the questions that I have. I, quite frankly, see
the need for the loop road, and I don’t think that people should be allowed to enter of the Aviation
from that one interchange. I really see the need for the loop road, and I understand the logic,
because of that line of sight issue on Aviation, taking that left hand turn, and, quite frankly, I don’t
see any way to design the plan to eliminate that. So I think we’re really forced to look at the
mitigation measures, and I think they’ve all been suggested. I think the big question that I have is, if
the property were to be gated, where those gates would be, gate or gates, and quite frankly I’m not
sure that that’s really going to solve a lot of problems, other than to keep some cars from going back
there.
MR. LAPPER-One of the neighbors said that it might encourage cars because it’s protected by the
building, kids want to hang out there. So that seems, to us to make sense to gate it, to prevent that.
What we’re proposing, and we’ll do it wherever the Board wants us to put them.
MR. JONES-What we’re looking at, there’s an existing fence that comes off the back corner and
comes around. We’re going to realign this leg to the back corner of the building addition, and this is
the playground for the Prospect School. What we were proposing to do was to come across at this
point, come off of the existing fence for the gate at this location, and then we were talking, at one
point, about bringing the fence down and around like this. On the opposite side, we were talking
about coming off of the back corner, coming across and gating at this location, coming across and
then down part of the western property line. We feel that this would, Number One, stop vehicles
from utilizing the road after hours. It would prohibit people from walking through the Prospect
School property and entering the back lot, but there’s nothing to stop them from coming up the
perimeter, as Mr. Lapper said, the watershed property we have no control over. So I’m not sure
how much value the fence has on the property lines coming down, but we would certainly look and
be willing to return that, both on the east and west side.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other question I had is related to the runoff, and I’m curious as to what
kind of calculations have been made. It sounds to me like, if there is an issue with runoff, that it may
be coming off the parking lot and not necessarily off the building.
MR. JONES-The existing parking lot on the east side has drywells that are used for infiltration.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JONES-They’re set at low points, and the parking lot is supposed to pitch back to those. The
new paving that was incorporated as part of the Administration Building back in ’94 or ’95, I’m not
sure of the date, we had designed infiltration trench along the east side of that. Basically it’s sloping
from west to east. Where we’re adding on to that, we would be continuing the infiltration trench
along the east side. We’re also incorporating infiltration trench from the back side all the way around
to the loop on this side.
MR. HUNSINGER-To capture?
MR. JONES-To capture everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. JONES-We would want to place the berm just to the south of the infiltration trench. We were
going to place the trench at the bottom of the berm, adjacent to the parking. We need to be careful
of how high we make the berm because in the intersection here, we only have 10 feet from the edge
of the existing paving to the property line. So we’ve got to be careful of how high we make the
berm, because it’s not going to retain its shape. One of the things that we had looked at here,
currently, there’s parking on the back side of this thing, perpendicular parking to the south edge of
the pavement. In rearranging the driving pattern, we’re looking at reconfiguring the layout, and
basically this becomes a driving lane. So we no longer have cars pulling headlong into the back side,
and potentially shining headlights through. We felt that was important. The other thing that this did
for us, right now, they have that strip of parking. So when they plow, which the neighbors were
discussing, everything is plowed to the south corner. With the drive in this location, they can no
longer do that. They’re going to have to maintain the snow on site, and as soon as it starts to build
up, remove it.
MR. HUNSINGER-So which direction would the snow be plowed now?
MR. JONES-The snow is probably going to be pushed in this direction, but it’s not going to be able
to be maintained in any kind of height.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I think that’s the Gottlieb house at the corner there, if they were interested, there’s no
reason why we couldn’t put some trees on the edge, on their property (lost words).
MR. JONES-Yes. We’re bringing the trees all the way around, Jon, to here, at that point one row. If
they were willing to let us do that, that would be fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, that was it. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did I hear you just say that they would probably have to remove the snow
that was accumulated on that?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, I think that if we, I have about seven stipulations that involve a
three foot berm to the south of the infiltration trench, which there would be an infiltration trench
along that back?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two rows of planting, change the white pines to hemlocks.
MR. JONES-Arborvitae, whatever.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Arborvitaes, whatever, would be better, six to eight foot stockade fence at the
rear of the property.
MR. JONES-Six foot. I don’t think eight foot’s allowed.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Well, they did put an eight foot, I think, with that Wal-Mart, didn’t
they? So I don’t know what would happen there.
MR. JONES-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Gating the back drive, to go down the western property line and also the
southeast property line, and giving the Gottliebs some more trees on their back boundary. I don’t
know if there’s anything else, but I think that Dr. Williams’ initial concerns about, I don’t know how,
we never really answered him, if a traffic study had been done with the new traffic coming out of
Lehland Estates down Mountain View Lane onto Aviation Road. I think we should probably talk
about that a little bit, if there is anything to talk about.
MR. JONES-I’m not aware of a study that’s been done.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I mean, I’m just saying, because he did bring that issue up.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in looking at the accident report, Cathy, have you seen the accident report?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-It seems, unless I’m misinterpreting what I’m reading, it seems like the accident
report is fairly light here. This is on the second page now.
MR. HUNSINGER-And many of the accidents are during the middle of the night.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and so I would have expected that it would have been more than what I read.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I felt the same way.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I thought so, too, but I didn’t know how.
MR. VOLLARO-Dick, let me ask you a question. Does the general property slope, to the south?
The property presently slopes to the south?
MR. JONES-Yes. The high corner is.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, if we put a berm up where you want, and an infiltration trench where you
want it, remember that now you’re going to be holding most of that water to the north side of that
berm.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So that infiltration trench has really got to work hard.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Because all of that permeable area that’s back here, that’s adjacent to that line, will
not be seeing much water, if you do that right. You might be able to solve that whole problem of
getting into their basements and so on, but you’ve got a real design problem on your hand, handling
as much water as you’ve got, because you’re pretty far above your permeability level now by variance.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So, it’s going to have to work.
MR. JONES-The stormwater system is designed on a 50 year storm, and it is over sized based on the
amount of pavement, and we were concerned, and that’s why we ran the infiltration trench along the
entire back perimeter.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, have you done a study on that trench, Dick, that you know that it’s going to
handle that water?
MR. JONES-Yes. We’ve used them before.
MR. VOLLARO-And what’s the perc in that area, is it pretty good?
MR. JONES-It’s less than five minutes.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s got a lot of sand there.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Queensbury sand. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-I agree with what Chris had to say. That, looking at ways to mitigate the effect of
that road back there. Because I unfortunately believe it’s necessary. I don’t necessarily like it, but I
do believe it’s necessary, based on the entrance to Aviation Road. If that could be closed off all
together, that might be something to look at, too, but I think the berm, the plantings, and I see the
fence is in or out, but I think the fence should be along the back there as well, it will mitigate those
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
issues, and what we just went over with the change in the driveway on the east side, not pushing the
snow as much, and what Bob was just talking about, the berm and the infiltration trench, you might
be better off there then when you started. There could be some improvement overall, but in the
water table on the far south side of the property. That’s all I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-The two drywells in the existing large parking lot, are they functional right now?
MR. JONES-Yes, they are.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you suppose is causing the runoff going on to adjacent properties?
MR. JONES-That existing parking lot on the east side does not have an infiltration trench along
either the east perimeter of it nor the south perimeter, and I think that part of the problem was the
snow that was being pushed to the back side of the parking lot. I know that the snow was in excess
of probably 15 to 20 feet, during the snowiest months last year, and that is a large amount of melt
and runoff, and it’s very close to the property line, and if that ground is frozen in the back tree area,
which I’m sure it is in the winter, there’s no infiltration back there at all. So it’s just flowing, sheet
flowing from one property to the other.
MR. MAC EWAN-And a question for Staff. Has this site plan been referred to A/GFTC for their
review?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t believe it has. I don’t find record of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and I guess there’s another question for you. Wal-Mart does have an eight
foot high fence. Did they get a variance to put up an eight foot high fence, that you remember?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t remember.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-It seems I recall reading somewhere that in a commercial zone you could have an
eight foot fence, but in a residential zone, you were limited to six foot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I think you’re right.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can have an eight foot fence as long as it’s got barbed wire on the top of it
or it’s an electric shock fence. I don’t think either one of those would be appropriate here.
MR. RINGER-It seems to me that in a commercial zone you can go eight. Even if you put the
electric shock, in my experience, the kids would find a way to get around it. The way the kids seem
to work is they’ll go into a spot, and they’ll be there until the police chase them out. Then they’ll find
another spot, and they’ll be there for a while until the police chase them out, and then they’re going
to find another spot. We go to an awful lot of alarms putting out the fires that they set, and it’s a
different location every three or four months, and because the police catch them here, they’ll just
move it. It’s unfortunate, but that’s what happens, and it happens through there, and the Mall, and
up at Wilkie, and all through those places.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other comments, questions from Staff?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t know if you want me to share this now, but I had eight, actually nine
comments that the Board and the applicant have discussed, that you may want to include in your
resolution. Do you want me to share those now?
MR. MAC EWAN-Were they suggested conditions of approval?
MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily. They’re comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, go ahead.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number One, I have installation of gate fixtures at the entrance and exit of
the access drive, the 75 white pines changed to a hemlock or cedar, the installation of a fence directly
adjacent to the proposed landscaping of 75, whether it be white pines or the cedars, add a berm
along with the vegetation on that side. All parking lot light fixtures on the south and north side be
cut off fixtures. All parking lot light fixtures be changed to a sensor light movement. Elevation
drawings for the north and south side be included as numbered drawings in the final site plan
submission, and possibly confirmation that the appropriate agency has been contacted to reduce the
speed limit on Aviation Road, and the last thing I have is a speed bump, which was a good comment
from Mr. Vollaro.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members?
MR. METIVIER-What about the extra entrance on Aviation, with the new parking lot? Did we
decide to close that off or keep it open?
MR. MAC EWAN-I haven’t made my mind up one way or the other at this point. I don’t know
about the rest of the Board. I think we have a couple of more steps to do first before we get to any
kind of a motion of any kind.
MR. METIVIER-No. I’m just curious as to where we’re going to go with that. That’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-Which one are you on, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-The one for the new parking in the back.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking here?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Whether we’re going to close that or not?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the consensus is they want to leave it open. I’m not sure, but it sounds that
way.
MR. RINGER-If I had my druthers, I’d leave it open. I think it’s a better flow, then to put
somebody in here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, what I’m going to do is close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. Is it a Long or Short Form?
MRS. MOORE-We have a Short Form.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Ready?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in
6NYCRR Part 617.6?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. RINGER-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1.
Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,
solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll say yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, explain, and can it be mitigated, any of those?
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a pick list on the Short Form, I can’t remember?
MRS. MOORE-No, you do not.
MR. SCHACHNER-You mean bullet items.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, just the ones that I.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think there’s a potential for ponding or flooding.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And has that been mitigated?
MR. MAC EWAN-That can be mitigated through the site development.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-By having the berm and the infiltration trench.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Anything else?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just one person up here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, is there anything else, gentlemen?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s other drywells on the property that will help additional mitigation,
besides just the infiltration trench. Am I right, Dick?
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have to catch a lot of it before it gets there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s keep it up here, please. Thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I just want to make sure that I understand that before I say yes or no.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or
cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats
or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change
in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Read that back, would you, please?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure. “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with a
community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land
or other natural resources?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that question phrased, Mark, in such a way that intensity of use goes hand in
hand with a change of use?
MR. SCHACHNER-It does not have to, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-It does not have to?
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, it could be two separate things. In other words, the use may not be
changing, but if you feel that it’s a significant increase in intensity of use, you can answer that
question in the affirmative. If you do that, of course, at the end of all this, you have to characterize
these things as so significant that you need to see either a Long Form EAF or an EIS, or simply that
these are impacts but they’re not very significant. That’s your ultimate punch line.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I don’t think, the intensity of use has already been there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it mitigated, though?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what Mark was saying is that if it’s a minimum, would you repeat?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not saying that it’s a minimum impact, but you can so find. What I’m
saying is, Craig’s question, I think, to me, was is the phrase “change in use and intensity of use”
linked so that the intensity relates only to when the uses change. Is that correct, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-And the answer to that question is, no, those two are not linked. It could be a
potential environmental impact relative to an change in use, or it could be a potential environmental
impact relative to a change just in the intensity of use, but not a change in the type of use. What I
added to that was that, right now you’re identifying whether there are any potential environmental
impacts of these types. Keep in mind that your ultimate punch line, when you get to the bottom of
this list, on the Short Form you don’t characterize each and every impact as small to moderate or
potentially large, on a Short Form, but when you get to the bottom of the short form, and you’ve
now identified some potential environmental impacts, you need to characterize the entire body of
them as so significant that you need to see either a Long Form EAF or an Environmental Impact
Statement, or a relatively minimal, relatively modest, not requiring any further SEQRA review.
That’s your ultimate punch line.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So did we ever decide what it is? There is a change?
MR. VOLLARO-I think the answer is yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, in the intensity of use of the land.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Now you have to go down, continue on until we get to the bottom.
MRS. MOORE-No, you need to indicate whether it can be mitigated.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, we have to do it now.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It’s appropriate to discuss whether it can be mitigated, but that ultimate
punch line I mentioned earlier you can do later.
MR. HUNSINGER-My feeling is we already discussed the mitigation measures. The intensity is the
additional size of the building which was mitigated through the runoff measures that we already
discussed.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see it that way.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see it that way.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, come to, at least four of you have to come to a consensus.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What do you see, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I see that the intensity on this particular property is high, and it’s high because of
the way, of how much building and impermeable space we’re putting on it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Exactly, right.
MR. RINGER-I agree with that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right, and that’s what caused us to give a positive on number one, on
the runoff.
MR. VOLLARO-But they’re connected.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re definitely connected. So I’m thinking that, because they’re
connected, because we mitigated number one, we can use the same mitigation measure for this one
here.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know how you can remove the building. See, that’s my problem.
MR. RINGER-As I understood Mark to say at the end, we can determine how significant that is, and
then we would determine, so we can say that there is a large intensity here, and then go on.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s where I’m going to.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. SCHACHNER-And it may be a significant change in intensity that’s not mitigated. That still
doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a significant environmental impact, and that’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s where I’m coming from, because I don’t think you can mitigate the
buildings, Cathy. They’re there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Okay. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1
through C5?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“C7. Other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of
energy?”
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that
cause the establishment of a CEA?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-To the environmental, yes. Yes, I think there is some controversy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Specifically with what?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The runoff, but we still have to mention that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And also maybe the back drive with the head lamps and the noise, but we’ve
mitigated that with a fence, double rows of plantings, a berm.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine. I’m in agreement with that.
MR. SCHACHNER-So what’s your answer on that? I didn’t catch it?
MR. VOLLARO-The answer is, yes, and we’ll get down to the bottom eventually.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So then we explain briefly. That’s on record. So, now we have to do.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to decide whether these are major or minor impacts.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. What do you think?
MR. MAC EWAN-The impacts themselves are minor because we’ve been able to mitigate the site
plan through the additional things that we’re requesting, like the berming, the infiltration trench, the
security fencing. All these issues that were identified as ways to mitigate the site plan, to me, would
make it minimum.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. RINGER-I agree, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now move for a negative dec.
MR. SCHACHNER-So, overall, you’re characterizing the impact as relatively minor. Is that correct?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s based on the mitigation that’s been proposed.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Make a motion for a negative dec, please.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2000, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
PROSPECT CHILD AND FAMILY CENTER, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-If someone wants to introduce a motion, one way or the other, be very specific.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’ve written a lot of things down here.
MR. VOLLARO-You have them listed?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have 10, which included most of them I think that Laura, hers and mine
kind of overlapped. She may have a couple.
MR. RINGER-If you’re going to make a motion, why don’t you take Laura’s notes, if she’ll let you,
and kind of read from them.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I have a couple of additions to Laura’s notes. You can add those, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just be specific.
MR. VOLLARO-Laura only has three notes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY
CENTER, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by
As prepared by Staff, in their prepared resolution, with the following stipulations: Number One, that
there be installation of gate fixtures on the entrance and exits of the access drives, specifically, okay,
and then installation of a fence.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Stop right there. On the access drive, specifically, okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t mean specifically. I was thinking of something else. All right. Let
me start again. There would be installation of gate fixtures on the entrance and exit of the access
drive. Okay. Number Two, installation of a fence directly adjacent to the proposed, I should be
reading mine. I’m trying to read Laura’s and mine at the same time here, installation of a six to eight
foot stockade fence at the rear of the property, which would be, I mean, I haven’t gotten to that
point. A three foot berm to the south of the infiltration trench. An infiltration trench along the
south side of the property, with the berm just to the south of that. Two rows of plantings along
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, I don’t mean to interrupt you, but you’ve got to be very specific regarding
the berm. How long?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Then somebody else better do this. The berm, how long? How
many feet that is behind, on the back of that property. I didn’t quite catch that. You guys have to
help me.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s 150 feet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Then a three foot berm that’s 150 feet long, to the south, on the
south side of the property.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s from here to here, if you drop that line, it’s about the same.
MR. MAC EWAN-Continue on.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute. Chris thinks it’s longer than 150 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s find out how long it is, Cathy. Hang on here. I mean, approximately
150 feet is pretty close for what we’re doing here.
MR. MAC EWAN-All you have to do is reference at that point and reference at that point. That’s
where you want the berm to go. It’s on the drawing. You don’t have to measure. You don’t have to
have interpretation of feet and inches. Just reference those details on the drawing, and that’s where
you want the berm to go. From that point down to that point.
MR. VOLLARO-This is a drywell? What is 491 sitting to the east there?
MR. MAC EWAN-Just an example, or you could say from the dumpster area.
MR. JONES-That’s a grade line, a topographic line.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a topo, okay, 491. All right. Just pick a couple of spots on the drawing, like
Craig says. Do it from the east dumpster.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-A dumpster, that could be moved.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s noted on our drawing. The drawing is the official plat.
MR. VOLLARO-It could be at the intersection of the boundary line from the, well, you want it to go
all the way down.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why can’t you just say where the plantings are shown on the map there?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was going to say, the drawing seems to depict that fairly well, where the
planting is. So just say per the print dated, whatever that print is, revised, the print dated 3/8/00.
MR. MAC EWAN-SP-2.
MR. VOLLARO-SP-2, dated 3/8/00, and have the plantings in accordance with that drawing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So the two rows of plantings will be in accordance with SP-2, drawing
SP-2 that was dated on March 8, 2000, right along where the plantings are shown there. All right.
Where are we now? Okay. Seventy-five white pine, excuse me, 75 hemlocks and cedars that would
have about a three to four inch caliper in diameter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you picking one or the other?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I said hemlock or cedars, or both. Whatever. I really would like to go into
the other room and write this down and start all over again.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not inappropriate.
MR. RINGER-Yes. We can take a five minute break if she feels.
MR. SCHACHNER-You know, this sounds like a lengthy, complex motion. Just for your reference,
Planning Board, that’s not inappropriate if you want to take a break and write something out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to do that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, to tell you the truth, I’ve kind of forgotten what I’ve said and what I
haven’t said.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, I’m being serious. On a long, complex motion, you can certainly take a
break and write it down. I’m not suggesting you delay the decision, but you’re not obligated to make
a decision for another 62 days, or take a break and write it out. Whatever you want to do.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have most of it here except I just kind of forgot what I just said.
MR. RINGER-Mark, is it proper if we take a five minute break, that a couple of Board members get
together to get the resolution? Is that proper?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. He just said it was.
MR. RINGER-He didn’t say a couple of people getting together.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, I didn’t say that. That’s true. I don’t think that would be appropriate
because you’re not supposed to discuss the application except in a public meeting.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well then let me continue. On, and if I’m redundant, you just tell me
that I’ve already said it. I guess it wouldn’t hurt to say the same thing, twice. It would be more
detrimental if I left something out. All right. That the parking lot lights be changed to sensor
lighting movement. All parking lot fixtures on the south and north sides be cutoff fixtures.
Elevation drawings for the north and south side be included as number of drawings in the final steps,
when everything has been, for the final site plan. Forget that one. I don’t think we need that one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute here. I’m going to ask, let’s take a five minute recess, Cathy.
Rescind that motion and write down exactly what you want to say. That way you’ll have all your
thoughts right on paper. Okay. We’ll take a five minute recess.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll call the meeting back to order, please. Okay. Are we ready?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think I’m ready.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I guess I will.
MRS. MOORE-We discussed, there’s some things that the Board should discuss before she makes
her motion.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’m sorry. I didn’t know when to do that. All right. There’s a couple
of thing that, before I make the motion, I have to ask you. The six to eight foot stockade fence,
where exactly is that to be located? Do you want it on the property line?
MR. RINGER-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then where?
MR. MAC EWAN-The discussion was that it was going to be right at the berm.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-However, I have a question. You said six or eight foot high fence. The
Ordinance says six. Eight foot is allowed in industrial zone, and I’ll say it again for the laugh, it’s
either got to be barbed wire on the top or an electric shock fence.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So a six foot stockade fence, and it’s going to be where exactly now?
MR. VOLLARO-Along the berm.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-To be located how many feet south of the berm?
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s wrong with saying at the base of the berm?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. You could use congruent with the berm.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and the next thing is, how do you feel about speed bumps on the
access road?
MR. MAC EWAN-Was that Larry’s suggestion?
MR. VOLLARO-No, that was mine. Speed bumps.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re going to have, I’m assuming this motion is going to have locked security
gates? Why would you need the speed bumps? The gate’s going to be locked after hours.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-True. That speed bump idea went in before the gate.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and one other thing. Do you think that we should involve a
combination of the appropriate agency to be contacted to reduce the speed limit on Aviation Road?
Should that be included? They were concerned about the safety factors on the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-But if we make that a condition of approval and another agency deems they don’t
need to lower the speed limit on Aviation Road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it doesn’t say that. It just says confirmation that an appropriate agency
has been contacted.
MR. SCHACHNER-To do what, lower the speed limit on Aviation Road near the Prospect School?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can make it conditioned that the request be made, if you like, but you don’t
have any control over whether it will be granted.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, yes, I understand that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Or, if you want, a more appropriate, as far as that goes, a more appropriate way
to handle that would be for this Board to recommend to the Town Board that the Town Board make
that request of DOT. The reason I’m saying that is because requests for changes of speed limits are
supposed to come from the governing body of the Town.
MR. LAPPER-It would probably be stronger coming from you guys anyway.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, in other words, that we would request the Town Board that they contact
the DOT, or whatever appropriate agency.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don’t know that that needs to be part of your motion.
MR. ABBOTT-But if we deem that it is appropriate that that be reviewed, we should take that as a
separate motion, as a recommendation to the Town Board.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, that’s what I’m suggesting.
MR. ABBOTT-Leaving the applicant out of it.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think that would be more appropriate, because the applicant has no input or
control into that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So then that’s something we can do later.
MR. SCHACHNER-Any time.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I think I’m all set now.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY
CENTER, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan 10-2000, Prospect Child & Family
Center for expansion of the school’s facilities. The proposal includes a 2,740 sq. ft. addition to the
“Main Center” and a 8,100 sq. ft. two story addition to the School building. The additions will be
used for a lunchroom, conference center, office space and other school needs. Site improvements
include additional parking areas and sidewalks, Tax Map No. 82-3-1, 2/82-2-6/90-1-2.2/Cross
Reference AV 22-2000 and AV 54-2000, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 1/26/00 consists of the following:
1. Application w/Stormwater Man. Plan dated 1/31/00, Warren Co. Tax Map Office Request
for Consolidation of Tax Map parcels dated 1/31/00, maps SP-1, SP-2 dated 1/26/00
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/27/00 Staff Notes
2. 6/21/00 ZBA resolution and ZBA staff notes
3. 6/13/00 C. Brown from R. Jones – Site Development Sheet
4. 6/8/00 Meeting Notice
5. 5/25/00 Staff Notes
6. 5/24/00 Fax from J. Lapper to L. Moore – re: need for additional variance
7. 5/23/00 Fax of Staff Notes to R. Jones
8. 5/18/00 Notice of Public Hearing
9. 5/17/00 ZBA resolution – approved w/conditions
10. 5/11/00 C. Brown from J. Lapper re: VanDusen Contract
11. 5/9/00 RFA comments - Final sign off
12. 5/5/00 L. Moore from J. Lapper re: Owner/Agent Authorization
13. 5/4/00 Meeting Notice
14. 5/1/00 L. Moore from R. Jones re: revised pages for Storm Water report
15 4/27/00 L. Moore from R. Jones re: Revised SP-2
16 4/27/00 L. Moore from J. Lapper re: amendment to ap. to include new tax
map no.
17. 4/27/00 C. Brown from J. Lapper re: revised site development sheet for
increase in permeable area and reduction in relief requested.
18. 3/21/00 Staff Notes
19. 3/15/00 RFA comments
20. 3/14/00 C. MacEwan from J. Lapper re: postponement
21. 3/10/00 Transmittal from K. Chadwick
22. 3/7/00 T. Center from R. Jones in response to Eng. comments of 3/7/00
(letter, revised maps SP-1, 2)
23. 3/7/00 R Frost Comments
24. 2/29/00 PB From R. Jones in response to Review and request for info
includes info sent to RF and revised drawings SP1, 2
25 3/2/00 Meeting Notice
26. 2/25/00 J. Lapper from L. Moore – Fax
27. 2/24/00 J. Lapper from L. Moore – Fax
28. 2/22/00 Staff Notes
29. 2/22/00 RFA Comments
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
30. 2/22/00 J. Lapper – Fax, Staff Notes
31. 2/19/00 PB From G. DeAngelo
32. 2/19/00 PB From S. DeAngelo
33. 2/15/00 L. Moore from R. Jones – Bldg. Elevations
34. 2/15/00 Notice of Public Hearing
35. 2/14/00 C. MacEwan from J. Lapper
36. 2/4/00 Meeting Notice
37. Undated Pictures taken by Staff
38. 3/21/00 PB resolution
39. 2/22/00 PB resolution
40. 6/22/00 C. Brown from R. Jones - New Info
41. 6/23/00 Fax to L. Moore from R. Jones – revised parking data sheet
42. 6/23/00 L. Moore from R. Jones – New Info addressing staff comments
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/22, 3/21, 5/25/00 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and
WHEREAS, all landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions:
a. Installation of locked gates on the entrances and exits of the access drive.
b. Installation of an infiltration trench as designed on the SP-2 plan of 3/8/00.
c. A three foot berm to the south, to be constructed just south of the infiltration
trench, the length as shown on SP-2 of 3/8/00.
d. Two rows of Hemlocks or Cedars, to be planted about three to four inches in
diameter, as currently noted where the 75 White Pines are on the SP-2
drawing of 3/8/00.
e. That trees will be placed on Gottlieb’s property, if they would like that to be
done, as per agreement between them and Prospect and a note to be added
to the plans as to what this agreement is.
f. A six foot stockade fence to be located congruent with the berm
g. All parking lot lights to be changed to sensor lighting movement and cut off
fixtures.
Duly adopted this 27th day of June 2000 by the following vote:
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Second?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we call the vote, Staff?
MRS. MOORE-My concern is enforcement of the snow removal, of off site snow removal. The
minute it snows and someone says there’s snow on site, or Code Enforcement gets a call that says
they haven’t removed their snow. So, is that a condition that you want within your resolution?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s one of the things we use to mitigate the flooding problem. I thought that
was something that we had agreed to.
MR. RINGER-I thought we agreed the trenches and the drywells were going to mitigate the
flooding?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But when the ground is frozen.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not going to push snow over near the property line. They’ve got a three
foot berm.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. RINGER-Right, and if they need the parking, they’re going to have to move the snow anyway
because they’re going to lose parking spaces if they don’t move the snow.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well then why can’t we put it in? Because we can’t enforce it.
MR. METIVIER-Because they’re requesting to move it off site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you like to revise your motion?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That was condition number five, regarding the removal of snow off
site. I guess I’m going to delete that because it can’t be enforced.
MR. MAC EWAN-Leave it at that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second on that, on the revision to that?
MR. RINGER-Bob seconded it. He’s got to agree.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I seconded it. I don’t have to, the motion’s been changed. So somebody else
can second it.
MR. MAC EWAN-All I’m looking for is a second. Does someone want to second it?
MR. METIVIER-I’ll second it.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think that, since he’s already seconded her motion, I think he would have to.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I don’t agree with that, because we heard from the applicant tonight that
they would remove the snow.
MR. METIVIER-That fact is that, first of all, with the way things are now, they move the snow back
there, in that corner, but now they have a berm. They have trees, they have fencing, and they have
the trench. So, first of all, you can’t push the snow back there unless you want to take all that stuff
out. So they’re going to have to somehow figure out a new way to move the snow, probably to the
east, instead of going back to the, so the fact is, is that the snow’s not going to be where it was
before. It can’t be, and even if it was, there’s new measures taken to alleviate some of the impact that
the snow has.
MR. MAC EWAN-If they were to continue to pile up the snow in the back corner of their parcel,
like they were prior to this new site plan, they’d be violating the site plan, because obviously they’ve
got to move the snow through the hedge row, through the berm, to store it. So they’d be violating
the site plan, and that would be an enforcement action, to have them replace the berm and the
plantings. I don’t see them doing that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, but why can’t they just move it to the corner of the parking lot, and
on the black top.
MRS. MOORE-Can I interrupt? Can we put a height restriction on that? That way if it’s so many
feet high, that they are to remove it from site.
MR. VOLLARO-That also becomes an enforcement issue, though.
MR. SCHACHNER-The point is, that’s an objective criteria that Craig Brown or somebody can
enforce. Where Staff is coming from here, and I think we need to be sensitive to this, where Staff is
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
coming from, correct me if I’m wrong, is that in theory simply saying snow removal must occur to
the wherever side means that phone calls can come to the enforcement office five minutes after it
snowed, while it’s snowing, ten minutes after it’s snowed, one inch of snow, half inch of snow,
quarter inch of snow. What Staff is now proposing is some limitation like one snow or snow bank or
snow accumulation cannot exceed X amount without being removed from the site. Something like
that, X amount in height, that is.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Six feet? Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-How are we experts on that? I mean, really.
MRS. MOORE-That’s fine, six foot of height. At least it’s an enforcement.
MR. RINGER-Craig, I don’t really feel we need that in the motion.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t, either.
MR. VOLLARO-Let’s take it out of there, remove it from the motion.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then condition number five, regarding removal of snow, I’m going to
just delete.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second on that?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second it.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 39-2000 LEIGH BEEMAN OWNER: SAME AGENT: CURT DYBAS
ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: SUNNYFIELDS LANE, CLEVERDALE
APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING STAKE DOCK AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A 680 SQ. FT. U-SHAPED CRIB DOCK AND A 468 SQ. FT.
SUNDECK. COVERED DOCKS IN WR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 49-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/00 TAX MAP NO. 12-3-
27.4 LOT SIZE: 1.05 ACRES SECTION: 179-16
CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LEIGH BEEMAN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 39-2000, Leigh Beeman, Meeting Date: June 27, 2000 “The
applicant proposes removal of an existing stake dock and construction of a 680 square foot dock and
468 square foot sundeck. Planning Board review is required for construction of a covered dock
located in the Waterfront zone. The applicant has received an area variance for setback relief. Staff
performed a site visit to evaluate the proposed location of the project. The lake property located to
the north has stake docks and sundecks. The lake property located to the south has a sundeck. The
proposed location of the project does not appear to interfere with the neighbor’s views to or from
the lake. The Planning Board may want the applicant to determine if any vegetation will need to be
removed in order to construct the project. If vegetation is to be removed the Planning Board may
want the applicant to submit a planting plan.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. DYBAS-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. DYBAS-My name’s Curt Dybas. I’m an agent for Leigh Beeman. Leigh Beeman is sitting next
to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project?
MR. DYBAS-Yes. What we are proposing, as was mentioned, is removing an existing stake dock
that is presently on the site and construct a new U-shaped crib dock with a sundeck above it. We
have gone before the Warren County Planning Board and also the Zoning Board because we sought
side setback relief, due to the way the property line, well not the property line, the line projected 90
degrees to the shoreline and extended into the lake resulted in the line coming around and we needed
to get a setback because of a 4.4 infringement on what we had proposed, and that was approved
unanimously last Wednesday evening, and we are now before you, being that, as was mentioned, we
are doing a sundeck and therefore the site plan is reviewed as required. Again, this is a new facility
being constructed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. DYBAS-And a brief, regarding the planting. As per the site plan, the entrance to this new dock
facility would be in line with where the present stake dock is, and no vegetation will be disturbed in
any way, shape or form. Hopefully we don’t even have to bother removing twigs.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I just noticed that, in the Warren County thing, they talk about that the land bridge
is removed from the plan. I think it’s still on there, or has it been removed?
MR. DYBAS-No, it is still on the plan. We talked about that at last week’s meeting. The Warren
County Planning Board approved the project with the deletion of the bridge, because they don’t like
land bridges.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s to be removed from this plan, from this drawing?
MR. DYBAS-No. The bridge is still part of this proposal.
MR. SCHACHNER-So the Board understands that that means that in order to approve, you would
need to have at least five of you vote in favor, to override the County Planning Board’s input.
MR. DYBAS-We designed the project with the land bridge, for those of you that visited the site, we
have both the grade up on the shore is seven to eight feet above mean water level in the lake, and in
order to build an aesthetic, what we call an aesthetic pleasing facility, and not really have to walk
down this steep shoreline out on to a dock, and really disturb more shoreline, we enter at level, and
there’d be three steps up to the sundeck, and then a stairway down to the dock facility. So rather
than going down the shoreline, onto the dock, and then if you want to go up onto the sundeck, you
have another stair up. So the visual impact is less, and you won’t see anything from the lake, coming
onto the facility. So we feel that to minimize shoreline and aesthetic pleasing facility, we are still
proposing the land bridge. We feel very strongly about it.
MR. VOLLARO-The existing stake dock to be removed, I think it has been removed, or did we look
at the wrong thing? Is it one over?
MR. RINGER-Which way was it, to the right or left? We looked at a newer one with a garage type
roof, a pitched type roof.
MR. METIVIER-Where are you in conjunction with Judge Moynihan’s house?
MRS. BEEMAN-Two houses north is the big house, and then it’s the third, it’s actually.
MR. DYBAS-There’s a large parcel that Mrs. Beeman owns next door, which has a dock facility
which is shown on this plan.
MR. RINGER-We looked at a brand new dock, and we couldn’t figure why you were tearing that
out.
MRS. BEEMAN-No, no. I know the one. You looked at the one just south.
MR. RINGER-We talked to a tenant (lost word) out there, and he said that was the dock. It was
someone who rented the house and said, yes, that’s what they’re taking.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. VOLLARO-See, that was my only question, whether it was built already or not. I guess that
was going to be my question, but you’re saying that the existing stake dock is still there. It’s to be
removed. So we’re starting from scratch on this. I don’t have any other questions.
MR. RINGER-That was my question. I don’t have anything.
MR. METIVIER-I’m all set, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-My only question is, I guess I’m confused as to what the concern that the
County Planning Board had with the land bridge.
MR. MAC EWAN-They don’t like them.
MR. RINGER-Every time they see a bridge, they always come back with that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, not just in Queensbury, anywhere. It’s been their policy for at least 10
years that I know of. No one is aware of any rational explanation for it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I was hoping for was a rational explanation.
MR. RINGER-I talked to one member and he told me that it was an aesthetic viewpoint.
MR. HUNSINGER-They do say something about concerns about altering the shoreline with the
land bridge, but I mean that was really the only question I had.
MR. VOLLARO-I think having this bridge is a practical way to handle it.
MR. RINGER-Absolutely, in most cases it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? Staff? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want
to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-Do we have to do SEQRA on this?
MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA. I’ll entertain a motion if someone wants to put one up.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2000 LEIGH BEEMAN, Introduced by Larry
Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 39-2000, for removal of existing
stake dock and construction of a 680 sq. ft. U-shaped crib dock and a 468 sf sundeck. Covered
Docks in WR zones require PB review and approval. Tax Map No. 12-3-27.4, Cross Reference: AV
49-2000, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 5/25/00 consists of the following:
1. Application, deed, drawings
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/27/00 Staff Notes
2. 6/21/00 ZBA resolution
3. 6/20/00 Notice of Public Hearing
4. 6/14/00 Warren Co. Planning – Approved w/condition
5. 6/8/00 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/27/00 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
WHEREAS, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Application approved as per the resolution as prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Sorry for the long wait.
MRS. BEEMAN-That’s all right. Thank you very much.
MR. DYBAS-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 41-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED NORTH QUEENSBURY RESCUE
SQUAD OWNER: SAME AGENT: RAY KRAFT ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION:
ROUTE 9L, CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
1,120 SQ. FT. ADDITION FOR TWO (2) GARAGE BAYS TO NORTH QUEENSBURY
RESCUE SQUAD. NEW USES IN NC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 50-2000, VAR. 268, AV 134-1989
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/00 TAX MAP NO. 10-1-8.2 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES
SECTION: 179-25
RAY & WENDY KRAFT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 41-2000, North Queensbury Rescue Squad, Meeting Date: June 27,
2000 “The applicant proposes a 1,120 square foot addition to the existing the North Queensbury
building. The applicant has received an area variance for setback relief and permeability. The
existing building is located off of Route 9L, next to the Cleverdale Post Office, and adjacent to a
wetland area to the south. The proposed addition will allow the Squad to store all of their equipment
in one location and allow for adequate space for equipment maintenance. The applicant does not
propose any additional landscaping to the site. The Rescue Squad has 15 members with 8 being
active for emergency calls. They proposed addition is only for ambulance storage there will be no
increase of meeting space. The proposal does not increase the amount of traffic involved with the
site. Staff performed a site visit to evaluate the existing site/building in relation to the proposed
project. The addition would take a majority of the parcel and leave minor amounts of green area for
some stormwater runoff and aesthetics. The applicant proposes only one site improvement that is to
install an approximate 250 gallon drywell to accommodate stormwater from the new addition. The
Planning Board should consider how the rear utilities such as the oil tank and the generator would be
accessed.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MRS. KRAFT-Hello.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MRS. KRAFT-I’m Wendy Kraft.
MR. KRAFT-Ray Kraft.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tell us a little bit about the proposed project.
MRS. KRAFT-The addition proposed is to house the ambulances which have gotten quite a bit
larger over the years, and our smaller bays no longer sufficiently accommodate. The freeing up of
the two smaller bays would allow us to bring our mountain rescue six wheeler vehicle and our small
rescue boat out of the firehouse bays and down into our own rescue facility, which would also be
very much appreciated by the firehouse. We propose to put the oil tank inside now, and have the
access for fill up on the side where the truck can easily get to it, and as far as the runoff, we did agree,
at the last meeting, to put a continuous gutter system on the entire building, not just on the addition,
to help with the runoff problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by the last meeting, the ZBA meeting?
MRS. KRAFT-The last Wednesday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Zoning, ZBA meeting. Did they make that a condition of their variance?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do have a question. I’ve got a concern with the septic area, only because the
Department of Health document that I have here is requiring separation distances from wastewater
system components. Now I don’t know whether this is, you know, the inspection department or
whoever is going to be responsible for this, but in that area, from the end of the building to the
property line is 22.88 feet, or 23 feet, let’s say. It talks, in there about, in this document, that the
septic tank should be no closer than 10 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the document that you’re referring to?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s the Department of Health regulations, New York State Department of Health
regulations. It comes out of a book that’s in the Planning Department. I only took Table 2 from
that book, and it talks about the absorption field being 20 feet away from the dwelling and 10 feet
away from the property line, and seepage pits the same way, 20 feet away from the dwelling and 10
feet away from the property line, and I just can’t see, under those requirements, how you get a septic
area in that’s in that small area of 22 feet to the property line. I don’t know whether you want to
condition this on the fact that Mr. Hatin takes a look at this. Laura and I talked about this on the
phone today.
MRS. MOORE-When they submit for their building application, it’s required that they eventually
will, Mr. Hatin will request information about the site itself. So I believe it’s a Building Department
issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would they need to get a variance, septic variance, having something that close to
the building?
MRS. MOORE-It would be up to the Building Department to indicate that they need that or not.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the problem I have with that, Laura, and I understand where you’re coming
from, but we have, and I only took one page from the New York State Department of Health
document which is in your office, took the one page out of that, so I didn’t bring the whole book,
but that page indicates that the absorption field should be no greater. It’s got to be, required
separation is 20 feet from the dwelling, whether it’s an absorption field or a seepage pit, and the
septic tank has got to be 10 foot from the dwelling and 10 foot from the property line, and when
those constraints are put on that box, you can’t get from here to there.
MRS. MOORE-It’s possible that they’ve already received a variance or some other sort of building
permit to place a septic there already. It’s not something I’ve looked into, but.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would have, I guess a problem, just giving, you know, if there was a motion
made, I’d have a problem approving that motion, because I have data in front of me that says I can’t
fit the septic tank in that square. Now, maybe we ought to talk a little bit about the book that this
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
came from. This is a New York State Department of Health regulation, and I don’t know, how does
the Town interface with that?
MRS. MOORE-We either follow the DOH guidelines or if our Code is more restrictive, we follow
our more restrictive code.
MR. VOLLARO-So this could be considered the least restrictive code right here, possibly?
MRS. MOORE-Possibly.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, under those rules, I don’t know how you do this. I just don’t know, whether
we ought to approach that as a variance to the, this would be the Town Board putting itself into the
Board of Health, and giving them a variance for this?
MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily. I’m just saying that it should be reviewed by the Building
Department, and that would happen at the time that they submitted for their building permit.
MR. RINGER-How would that effect us, Mark, as a Planning Board, something that, you know, I
guess if it’s in there, then it’s up to the Building Department to make sure it’s enforced, even if we
approve or disapprove. Well, if we disapproved it wouldn’t have any effect, but if we approve, then
the Building Department would still have a say to say, wait a minute, you can’t have your permit until
that’s moved or, so it wouldn’t have any effect on our approval one way or the other, would it?
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s generally correct. It’s a separate requirement, similar to any other State
agency requirement, that you don’t really have the obligation to enforce.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand where Bob’s coming from on this. The fact that it’s sitting that
close to the proposed addition on this parcel, and the fact that the parcel itself is so limited to
relocate, or what if the septic system failed in five years and they had to put a new one in? Where
would they put it?
MR. RINGER-I don’t know. First of all, we don’t know if Dave would approve it or not, and if
Dave would approve it, he would have the expertise to determine if it’s feasible to have it there or
not, I would assume, or if it’s in violation of the State code or of the Town code.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would it be appropriate to want to ask that information first, before we entertain
approving or denying this site plan, getting that additional information?
MR. RINGER-If you’re asking me, that’s why I asked Mark, where does the Planning Board fit in?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, and please understand that I was pretty careful in my wording of my
answer. I said you’re not obligated to enforce that, but I’m not sitting here saying you can’t get into
this. I mean, certainly that whole area is one valid concern of the Planning Board. So if you feel that
you have a concern about that particular aspect of the plan, and you want to get that type of input
from the Building Department, you certainly can do that, but I want to make sure I’m not being
understood to say you can’t do that. All I was saying is you’re not obligated to enforce that
provision, because it is a Health Department provision that even if you don’t enforce it, the Building
Department will. Does that make sense?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You make sense to me. Is it customary that the Building Department, before
these plans get to the Planning Board, have had a chance to look at those?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-What if the building addition were pulled forward on the lot? If the building
addition were moved forward on the lot, so that it would allow more room for the septic system?
MR. MAC EWAN-Move the front end of the proposed addition up to, and even it with the existing?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’ve got a variance for 41.66 feet. They have a, this is not a 50 foot
setback here. They got a variance on that of 8.34 feet from the Zoning Board of Appeals. So if they
move that further, then that variance has got to be changed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-If your septic system was to fail, do you have another alternate location on the
parcel where you can install a new one if you had to?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MRS. KRAFT-Well, to be honest with you, Craig, the septic system was approved back when the
addition was done, back in 1990, and we have such a small membership, we have one meeting a
month, usually with eight or less members attending. There is no facility, other than a toilet and a
shower, in the place. The system is used so little. They did recommend a pumping every few years.
MR. VOLLARO-Which is typical.
MRS. KRAFT-And when they came to pump it, there was nothing in it. I mean, the system just isn’t
used.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I can have a lot of appreciation for a lightly used system. What I’m really
driving at is there’s a set of reg’s I’m looking at that says, this is how you build a septic tank or a
seepage pit or an absorption field. It talks about all three components of the system.
MR. MAC EWAN-From where you’re going, from that angle then, should this be approved, and
they make application for a building permit, and the Building and Codes Department says, okay,
you’re not meeting the setback requirements for your septic system, you have two choices, either
relocate it to an area where you’ll meet the setback requirements, which they know we know they
can’t, or the logical avenue for them to pursue is to get a variance from the Town Board of Health.
MR. VOLLARO-We could certainly make that a requirement of our motion to highlight to the
Building Inspector that he should pay attention to this, I would think.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable. Okay. Any other questions? Are you satisfied with where
we’re going with that?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m satisfied with it. I see this as, I’d like to watch this. I mean, I know that
these are definite requirements. This is not vague. It’s not something that’s hard to understand.
They’re very, very clear. Required separation distances from wastewater system components, and
they give you very specific separations. So if the logic says, if our plan is equal to or our Town code
is equal to or greater than this, more stringent is probably a better word, okay, then this is the least
stringent of it, and I don’t see, based on these numbers, how a septic system fits in that square.
That’s something that the Building Department or the Building Inspector or whoever will have to
make a decision, but I don’t see how he can come to any conclusion, other than to go with a
variance. That’s my position. I’m done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions? Staff? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does
anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-SEQRA, Long or Short?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant submitted a Long Form.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change
to the project site?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-The answer is yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Small to moderate?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can it be mitigated by project change?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And can you be more specific?
MRS. MOORE-There’s a list of examples. I’ll try to find one that pinpoints what I think you’re
describing.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. ABBOTT-We said small to moderate impact. So these are examples that would apply to
Column Two, which is potentially large impact.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but you’re going about this in the wrong order. First you have to identify
what the impact you’re talking about is, and I think you’re probably going to be down at the bottom.
I don’t have it in front of me, but down at the bottom of the column list of bullet items it says, Other
Impacts, and there’s a blank, and my guess is you’ll be filling in that blank and then characterize what
you’ve filled in as small to moderate or potentially large impact.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the fill in blank would be an addition to the existing building, and it would
be small to moderate. Okay.
MRS. MOORE-And then you have, in Column Three, can project be mitigated, and you’ve said yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do I stand alone on that?
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re okay.
MR. METIVIER-That’s okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water
runoff?”
MR. VOLLARO-The answer is, I think the answer would be yes, but I think it’s been mitigated by
the statement in the ZBA’s approval of the variance, where they talk about the gutters.
MR. MAC EWAN-Continuous gutters, yes.
MRS. MOORE-You have, yes, and you have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate and under Other Impacts.
MRS. MOORE-The other impacts are?
MR. MAC EWAN-Runoff, stormwater runoff.
MRS. MOORE-Runoff from addition?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and the existing building, the ZBA variance inclusive of them using
continuous gutters for stormwater management.
MRS. MOORE-Thank you.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 41-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
NORTH QUEENSBURY RESCUE SQUAD, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2000 NORTH QUEENSBURY RESCUE
SQUAD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 41-2000, North Queensbury
Rescue Squad for the addition of two garage bays to existing No. Queensbury Rescue Squad, Tax
Map No. 10-1-8.2, Cross Reference: AV 50-2000, AV 268, AV 134-1989, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 5/25/00 consists of the following:
1. Application w/six attachments
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/27/00 Staff Notes
2. 6/1/00 Fax to R. Kraft from C. Round
3. 6/14/00 Warren Co. Planning Board resolution - NCI
4. 6/21/00 ZBA resolution – Approved w/conditions
5. 6/20/00 Notice of Public Hearing
6. 6/8/00 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/27/00 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and
WHEREAS, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved in accordance with the resolution as it was prepared by Staff, with the
following condition:
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
a. That the Building Inspector examine the location of the septic area, as noted
on Site Plan S-1 dated June 6, 2000, the location of the septic system in terms
of separation from the building and the property line.
Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. By his resolution on that, if they’re reviewing it and they deem that
they’re not going to approve a building permit, and they’re going to recommend that he get a
variance from the Board of Health, if that’s the case. All he’s trying to do is bring it to their
attention for review.
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2000 SKETCH PLAN STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WENDY
KRAFT OWNER: ELSA KRAFT ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF
CLEVERDALE RD., ½ MILE SOUTH OF ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 53.52 AC. PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 52.03 AC. AND
1.49 AC. TAX MAP NO. 10-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 53.52 +/- ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
RAY & WENDY KRAFT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-2000 Sketch Plan, Wendy Kraft, Meeting Date: June 27, 2000
“The applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision for sketch plan review. The parcel (10-1-4.1) is
53.62+/- acres. The applicant proposes to create a lot of one acre and a second lot of 52.62 +/-
acres. The existing parcel extends over Cleverdale Road on either side and over Route 9L. The
portion of the property on Cleverdale Road is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR-1A) and the Route
9L portion is zoned Land Conservation (LC42A). The applicant has requested a waiver from
providing the two-foot contour intervals for the entire property, a grading plan for the proposed
building lot, and a drainage plan for the proposed building lot. Staff performed a site visit to evaluate
the proposed project. The proposed building location contains moderate to less moderate slopes.
The surrounding area was heavily wooded with existing homes on the same side of Cleverdale as the
proposed home.
The Board should consider the following during their review of the project:
1. Requesting the applicant to provide 2ft contour interval for the proposed building
lot and USGS contour intervals for the remaining property.
2. Requesting the applicant to provide an estimate of the amount of wetlands on the
property to assist in determining the potential re-subdivision of the property.
Including areas that are within the designated 100 year flood zone.
3. Determine if a grading and stormwater plan should be provided based on the site
topography.
4. The applicant should be asked to indicate the acreage of the "Other lands of Kraft"
as shown on the sketch plan, along with a survey of that portion of the property and
be asked to place an insert showing the entire parcel on the plat, and the applicant
should be asked to indicate by a note on the plat the total acreage of the parcel.
5. The applicant should be asked about future intent to subdivide this portion of the
property. If so, it would make sense to allow for clustering, especially if there are
environmental limitations.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Again.
MRS. KRAFT-Hi, Craig. I’m still Wendy Kraft.
MR. KRAFT-Ray Kraft.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can you tell us a little bit about your proposed project?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MRS. KRAFT-Our proposed project is to allow a family member to build a very small home on a
piece of property amongst our family property. I think we’ve done our homework with Matt Steves
and they’ve gone up there and done the perc tests and everything, and I think we’re pretty good with
this. We certainly have all of the setbacks and everything that you could possibly ask of us. There
will be a minimal amount of clearing, because the family member that wants to live up there happens
to like living in the woods, and as far as creating a lot of other building lots, the only possibility, some
time in the future, may be for one of our daughters to also build a home up there, but it certainly
wouldn’t be right next door or on top of the other home that’s on the piece of property. There is
quite a bit of acreage up there, and there are no plans to create a community or a neighborhood or
anything like that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MRS. KRAFT-You tell me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-My only question relates to the shape of the remaining lot, and, you know, you
look at this map and you have that 25 foot wide strip across the rear.
MRS. KRAFT-There is a reason why we did that, because there are no plans to further develop the
land. We didn’t want to create another building lot next to the lot. We didn’t want to put a house
right next to the house on the end, which is not owned by us. So we came in from there to give
plenty of distance from the homes, but if we created that end lot into another lot, they would tax us
as a lake front building lot, unless we left it attached to the rest of the parcel of land.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who told you that?
MRS. KRAFT-The Town and Matt Steves.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s hard to believe that the Town would encourage.
MRS. KRAFT-As long as we left that adjoining land along the back, so that end lot is still part of the
main parcel.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s kind of bizarre.
MRS. KRAFT-I know.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Town Code actually encourages an irregular shaped lot, which you would
think we would do everything we could to discourage.
MRS. KRAFT-I suppose that if some time in the future a family member, probably generations after
we’re gone, decides to build a home next to the existing home that will be there, they’ll have to do a
land adjustment and create that into a building lot at that time, but you’re talking about a big
difference in taxes up there. If you turn that into a building lot, it could sit vacant for 35, 40 years,
and they’ll still whop you for waterfront property, even though it’s vacant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That was my only question.
MR. VOLLARO-In Staff notes it says the applicant proposes to create a lot of one acre.
MRS. KRAFT-It’s actually 1.49 I believe.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s 1.49. Is there a misprint there?
MRS. MOORE-A misprint, then. It must be a misprint.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it? Because I couldn’t understand how we got this. So it’s 1.49 acres we’re
talking.
MR. KRAFT-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-In the big drawing. Okay. Now, what they have is, the big lot is 53, starts off with
53.62 acres, and then you want to take 1.49 acres out of that, right?
MRS. KRAFT-Correct.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Again, we have, the remaining, the second lot would be 52.62, which is going to be
a different number.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-If we’re 1.49. Okay.
MRS. MOORE-To interrupt, that’s why the notes should be added to the plot plan that indicate the
acreage remaining of the leftover parcel.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right now it’s going to be 52.03 and the other one’s going to be 1.49.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-But those should be noted on the subdivision plan.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the only, right now, from a sketch plan point of view, that’s my only
comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got a question that I’m going to throw right over to Staff. How can you do a
subdivision of land, of four parcels of land, that aren’t contiguous, and that are in two separate
zones? I’m lost. I’ve never seen it before.
MRS. MOORE-The parcel of land is connected because the County allowed it to be connected
across from 9L.
MR. MAC EWAN-On the one hand they don’t want land bridges from decks, and the other hand.
MRS. KRAFT-Not only that, Craig, but when they said we had to notify people concerning the lot,
anyone within 500 feet, we’re talking a bulk mailing because they made it for the whole parcel.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could Staff give me some guidance on that question?
MRS. RYBA-I did ask about that, and in the regulation it’s considered 500 feet from within a parcel,
and this, because it is land hooked, it is a parcel. Even though it appears to be subdivided by roads,
it’s still considered a parcel, and Mark can back me up on that, in terms of, I believe it would be
considered a legal parcel, and that’s just the way it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wild.
MRS. KRAFT-I can handle the mailing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff’s recommending five items be addressed. Two foot contours, right,
you’re asking for two foot contours.
MRS. MOORE-That’s for the Board to consider. These are only suggestions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and an estimated amount of wetlands.
MRS. KRAFT-The only wetlands on the property are across 9L on the other side of the Rescue
Squad building.
MRS. MOORE-I can further explain that. Because the property is split zoned, Waterfront
Residential One Acre does not allow clustering, but the portion across 9L, which is zoned LC-42,
does allow clustering. So that’s where, if the applicant ever wanted to re-subdivide parcels out of
here, then the opportunity to cluster could be available to them, on the LC-42 zone, and that’s
primarily where we’ve discovered that there are wetlands there. So I’m looking for an estimate to
gauge whether they want to cluster or future intentions.
MR. RINGER-But even if she clustered, she could only get one building on there, the 42 acre, even
if she clustered, in the 52 acres that are left, she could only have one building.
MRS. MOORE-It’s something that would have to be looked into because of the fact that it’s split
zoned.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to know how much each parcel is, acreage wise. Do we have that
documented some place, how much acreage is in each parcel?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t have that documented.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MRS. KRAFT-Most of them are around two.
MR. KRAFT-No, no. They’re talking about the part on the one side of Cleverdale Road, the other
side of Cleverdale Road, and the other side of 9L.
MR. MAC EWAN-Basically, yes. You have one, for tax map purposes you have one large piece of
land, but looking at it on the map, we’re actually looking at four different sizeable lots, and I’m
curious to know what the acreage is for each one of those lots individually.
MRS. KRAFT-The bulk of the land is on the side where we’re proposing to put the building lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, on the south side of Route 9, the parcel that’s denoted as the 53.62 acres,
which it isn’t 53.62 acres. How many acres are over there? Because if it’s an LC-42A zone, and
you’ve got less than 42 over there, you’re not going to be able to do anything with it. Right?
MR. RINGER-I see what you’re saying here.
MRS. MOORE-With the split zoning. That’s why I’m saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why I think it’s important that we know what the acreage is on each parcel.
MRS. MOORE-It’s something that we could look into, to help determine what the acreage is on
either side.
MR. KRAFT-One thing is that the part on one side of 9L and the other side of 9L was one parcel
before they put the road in.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s true, but what compounds it is the fact that this, now your parcel is
split in two by two roads, actually, but you also have two different zones which have two different
requirements for building in them. I mean, just looking at the size of the parcel that’s on the south
side of 9L, without knowing the exact acreage in there, I would be guessing that you won’t be able to
build anything on that.
MR. KRAFT-The part by the old firehouse.
MR. MAC EWAN-Over by the old firehouse, on that side.
MR. KRAFT-We can’t anyways. It’s wetlands.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I mean, the fact that you have an LC-42A zone, and the fact that you have
wetlands on there, that you have to meet criteria for setbacks from wetlands, you probably would
never be able to put anything on there.
MRS. KRAFT-We don’t want to.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you want the two foot contours, you’re requesting that two foot contours be
shown on the proposed lot only.
MRS. MOORE-Correct, and the reason behind that is for slope determination, how much of their
property can they utilize, if, a portion of the property where the house is, and then right directly
behind the proposed house it continues up, then is that a usable lot? Are we going to be able to fit
the septic system and things like that on there?
MR. MAC EWAN-Item Three that you’re also suggesting is determining of a grading and
stormwater plan needs to be provided based on the topography, which you wouldn’t get until you
got your contours. Is that an administrative decision that you guys would want to make, at
submission for preliminary?
MRS. MOORE-Whether they need a stormwater and grading plan?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-We can, but that’s up to you, if you feel that we should.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at it from the standpoint that, you know, hypothetically I could see
this as a two step process, done in one night, basically as a two lot subdivision. If they were to make
application for preliminary and submitted our recommendations that we’re going to be asking for,
inclusive of two foot contours on the proposed building lot, then they show up here the night for
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
preliminary, and we say, okay, now you need to supply us with the grading and stormwater plan, I’d
rather see that done administratively by Staff, to determine that when they make application at
preliminary, that you say, okay, now we’ve seen your contours, it’s steep enough that we request this
information.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MRS. RYBA-I think we could get the consulting engineer to take a look, if you were uncomfortable
with making that determination.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m in agreement with Item Four, going with how much acreage is on the other
parcels.
MRS. RYBA-I’d like to make a comment on that, as well, and I finally understand, more completely,
why you want that piece of land in back of the proposed parcel because of the tax situation.
However, if there were a point in the future where you did want to subdivide, or let’s say 20 or 30
years down the road, and the zoning, or even five years down the road, and the zoning here is one
acre, I believe, we don’t really know if there’s enough land on either side. It appears, looking at this
map, but without it being, so to even have this part right here that they’re looking at subdividing,
have that surveyed would be helpful.
MR. KRAFT-There’s an acre and a half left on that end.
MRS. RYBA-On either side, there’s an acre and a half on one side and an acre and a half on the
other.
MRS. MOORE-It would be helpful to note that information on the drawing, so that, in the future,
someone can come along and say, one side is an acre, and you decide that you want to subdivide it.
So it’s more of a notation on the drawing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Give me some clarification. Her position is that anything that’s on waterfront,
you get taxed heavily on, even if it’s an undeveloped lot, because it’s in a WR-1A zone? Is that
because it’s just in the zone itself, or is it because that particular lot happens to actually have lake
frontage? Would it matter? If I had, let me ask you this question. If I had two undeveloped lots in a
WR-1A zone, one actually had lake frontage, while the other one didn’t, are they taxed differently for
undeveloped lots?
MRS. RYBA-That’s really an assessment question, but I couldn’t answer that. I mean, it would make
sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you shaking your head because it’s a good question, or is it assessed
differently?
MRS. KRAFT-We were advised that it’s assessed differently.
MR. MAC EWAN-Assessed differently?
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s my understanding.
MR. VOLLARO-One would be assessed on the front footage along the lake, and the other would be
assessed in some different way.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, when the Assessor looks at the properties every March 1, which I think
st
is taxable status day, or whatever the day is, she’s going to see one property that has certain potential
value based on its size, acreage, topographical features and what not. She’s going to see another
property that has a different assessed value based on a different set of features that includes frontage,
by frontage I mean frontage on water.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and you’re basing it on the fact that it’s just a WR-1A zone? Because this
parcel that you’re looking to retain because of the tax, the proposed taxes that you were saying that
you’d be subject to.
MR. KRAFT-That and we didn’t want to hold two different lots of property.
MR. MAC EWAN-The problem I guess I have with that is that our Subdivision Reg’s actually
encourage us not to create what they call flagged shaped lots, which this probably would fit into that
scheme. Where I can see down the road, if you chose to subdivide either one of those lots off
afterwards, you know, you’ve now turned a simple two lot subdivision into a three lot subdivision.
I’ll tell you why it’s going to be three. If you left it like that, and you took this little piece right here
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
that’s going behind the property line, and if you were to say deed that down the road, in the future,
you’re going to take the furthest property to the north and you’re going to create that lot, then you’ve
got this other flag shaped, you’re creating another flag shaped lot, and we don’t want to do that.
MR. RINGER-I would think, at that time, they would go for, to include that as part of that lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve now made it a three lot subdivision.
MR. RINGER-That would become one lot. I don’t know all the mechanics of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you did a two lot, down the road, either way, you’re going to create another
flag shaped lot. If you took that little parcel of land and deeded it to the one that they want to create
here, it would be creating a three lot subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s assuming that this piece is an acre.
MR. RINGER-It is, they said it was an acre and a half.
MRS. KRAFT-It is.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no, 1.49, I’m talking about this piece. It looks like, in scale, it would be.
MR. RINGER-But he said that was an acre and a half, this here.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no. This and this, 1.4 and 1.4, 1.5 and 1.5.
MRS. KRAFT-There’s no lot there that you’re looking at that’s less than an acre and a half.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So Craig’s position is valid, then. If you put this one lot, this lot, and then
the next lot, that’s a three lot subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you see what I’m saying?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked the question.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it’s right here in our reg’s.
MRS. KRAFT-Well, since the land isn’t going to be further developed, to me, it’s a non issue, but I
would guess that we would have.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you said that you may consider subdivision down the road again.
MRS. KRAFT-That would be down by our house.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is all one piece of property, really. As I look at it, the way it’s land
hooked, this is all one piece.
MRS. KRAFT-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And what you’re trying to do is carve an acre out of all of that, 1.49 acres.
MRS. KRAFT-1.49 acres.
MR. VOLLARO-Out of there.
MRS. KRAFT-And if any lot on either side is developed in the future, there will be a property line
adjustment taken care of with the surveyor in the Town at that time, but if we clear cut that lot and
create another building lot, the taxes on that building lot, even though it won’t be built on, will be
enormous.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the difference now versus then? I don’t get that either. Because if you
create this one lot, and you pull out this little piece for your family member, you’re now still left with
a Waterfront Residential 1A piece of land, that’s the equivalent of about six acres right there.
MRS. KRAFT-Because that big chunk of land isn’t regarded as building lots. It’s regarded as
wooded area, but if you create one little parcel that’s perfect for a little house, and you isolate it from
the rest of the parcel.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s telling you this? I’m curious.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MRS. KRAFT-Well, it was a combination of the surveyor and the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who from the Town?
MRS. KRAFT-Craig Brown maybe.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Here’s my suggestion. I’ll throw it out and see if the Board goes along
with me. I’d like them to denote the acreage of all these individual pieces of land, so we have an idea
how each parcel. Even though it’s considered one tax map parcel, I’d like to know what the acreage
is on each of these parcels, for future consideration. Two, that the two foot contours be shown on
the proposed building lot. Three, that if a grading and stormwater plan should be needed, it would
be determined by Staff during application review for preliminary submittal.
MR. VOLLARO-It sounds good to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Four we already said, because we want to know the acreage. I would like some
clarification from the Assessor’s Office as to the validity of retaining a large parcel of this land in a
WR-1A or versus cutting it up into an acre and a half parcel or two acre parcel, as we’re proposing
here. Do you understand what I want you to do? Are we in unison?
MRS. RYBA-Could I just add that there be, that that whole parcel maybe put in as an insert on the
plan?
MR. MAC EWAN-On this one here?
MRS. RYBA-When they come in for preliminary and final.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking for.
MRS. RYBA-For this type of a thing that we put together from the GIS, if that be put on as an
insert, so we can see.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, like we typically get on subdivision maps, yes, that’s fine. Do we need a
formal resolution on this?
MRS. MOORE-It would be helpful.
MR. VOLLARO-Just for my own clarification, when we add up all of these lots, it will come out to
53.62, is that correct, this whole piece is really 53.62?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it should. If the map is there, it should. Okay.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 2-
2000 WENDY KRAFT MOVE ON TO PRELIMINARY APPLICATION, Introduced by
Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott:
With the following conditions:
1. Denote the acreage on all the individual parcels of land within this 53.62 acre parcel.
2. That two foot contours be delineated on the proposed subdivided 1.49 acre lot.
3. Leave it to Staff to determine if a grading and stormwater plan needs to accompany
the preliminary application.
4. Staff to confer with the Assessor’s Office to determine the validity of taxing parcels
in a WR-1A zone, based on size or acreage.
5. That a location map be inserted on the subdivision plat that would show the extent
of the property.
Duly adopted this 27th day of June 2000 by the following vote:
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff to confer with the Assessor’s Office to determine, I don’t know how to
word this, the validity of taxing parcels in a WR-1A zone based on parcel size or acreage.
MR. SCHACHNER-What are you trying to find out?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, she’s saying that it’s not as stiff of a tax burden to her if the parcel remains
large and wooded, as she said, versus a one and a half or two acre building lot, and I’d like to maybe
get some clarification from the Assessor’s Office as to how that occurs in a WR-1A zone.
MR. SCHACHNER-And you’re asking Staff to seek that information from the Assessor’s Office.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-From the Assessor’s Office.
MRS. MOORE-I understand. We can ask the Assessor.
MR. MAC EWAN-I may not have worded it the way I wanted to, but.
MRS. MOORE-Ask the Assessor how it’s assessed, in Waterfront zones.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and how they base their assessment, I guess.
MR. VOLLARO-On Number Four, your fourth one concerning the Assessor, what difference does
it make if a lot is wooded or unwooded? It’s still a building lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re asking.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I can tell you that’s correct. That’s what why I was confused at the
applicant’s idea that if the lot is wooded, it’s not essentially a building lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s still a building lot, cut the trees down.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. That’s definitely a true statement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments, additions? Anything from Staff? I’ll move for a
second.
MR. ABBOTT-Second.
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan.
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
MRS. KRAFT-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to take the floor for a minute?
MRS. RYBA-Okay. Sure. Then did you want to go into Executive Session?
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s totally up to the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll do that.
MRS. RYBA-What I’m handing you is just a memo from Chris Round, and it’s about the Great
Escape Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The Post Star FOIL’d the Draft of the
EIS, and we have copies, if you want to take a look at it. There are number of items that are not
complete. Your clock doesn’t start running until it is considered complete. So there will be a new
document produced probably within a week, but I do have copies available here if you want it. The
conclusion was that it was only fair to the Board to have something that the Post Star has a copy of.
So that’s what this is about.
MR. RINGER-How many copies do you have available?
MRS. RYBA-Anyone can have it. I have three boxes full. It’s three volumes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to look at it until we get something finished and ready to be read
over by everybody, and reviewed by everybody. Did you bring copies for everybody?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to hand them out for everybody tonight?
MRS. RYBA-Only if people want them. Let me just show you what there is. There’s three volumes,
and as I said, it is going to change, but it’s up to you. They’re here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, I don’t want to see it until they respond to this, Chris’ letter with the
31 additional items. I don’t think it’s ready for us to review yet.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. RINGER-I’d like to have one, Marilyn.
MRS. RYBA-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s me. Everybody else can have it if they want it. Okay. Is that it for that?
MR. RINGER-The three different segments, the one across the street, is that how they did that?
MRS. RYBA-I haven’t looked at it. I mean, I sat in on the meeting where we went over the items.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody else want copies?
MR. VOLLARO-How long will we have to actually study that when the clock strikes?
MR. RINGER-Twenty-four hours.
MR. SCHACHNER-How long will you have to accept the EIS? Do you have your SEQRA Reg’s
handy, Laura?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, obviously, to accept it you’ve got to read it. I’m trying to figure out how
much time we’ll get to actually study the document.
MR. SCHACHNER-The real answer is you’ll have as much time as you want because I’m going to
tell you that there’s some multiple of the 15 days, it might be 30, it might be 45, it might be 60. I’ll
tell you in a second, but the bottom line is if you get to a situation where you feel you need more
time, you can’t be forced to accept the document. There’s no default provision. So even though I’m
going to tell you there’s a certain number of days in which you’re supposed to do this, as a practical
matter, the answer is you have as long as you reasonably need to take. If you say to me, I’m going to
take another year to look at this, I’m going to tell you that’s not reasonable, and that nobody’s going
to uphold that, but if you get to the end of the 30 day period and you need a few more days, as a
practical matter, we’ll always be able to get you that.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to look at reading a document like that as if you were going to take an
exam.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you need to review it thoroughly.
MR. VOLLARO-You bet.
MR. SCHACHNER-No one’s going to test you on it.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no. I understand that, but I say, you know, the objective is to understand
what’s in it.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s absolutely correct. Keep in mind that when you review the document
for completeness, to accept it for completeness, you don’t have to agree with everything in it, but
what you need to do is to make sure that the document addresses, and addresses in an adequate level
of detail for you to meaningfully review, all the points issued in the Scoping Document, but again, it
is possible, and I’m not suggesting this is the case. I have no idea, but sometimes you will review a
document, it will discuss an issue in great detail, and it will reach a conclusion that you don’t agree
with. That’s not a reason to kick it out as incomplete.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a copy of the original Scoping Document at home.
MR. SCHACHNER-When you say “original” Scoping Document, you mean the one that was
approved? Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a copy of the Scoping Document.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, make sure it’s the right one, is all I’m saying.
MR. VOLLARO-Does Staff know how to determine that, whether I have the right Scoping
Document or not?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Sure, we can figure that out. The answer is 45 days from when the Draft is
submitted.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question here. I’ve talked to Chris a couple of times over the last couple
of days regarding this, you know, with the Post Star requesting this, and how we should handle it
with the Board, and the fact that Staff has got 31 things it deems it needs to be corrected, or are
incomplete, from the Draft, I was under the impression in talking with Chris, as late as today, that a
resolution was going to be introduced for Thursday night requesting, or however it was going to be
worded, that this Draft is not complete and ready for review by the Planning Board until these 31
items are addressed. Is that still the plan?
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s probably correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then, if these 31 items have to be addressed, Mark, then really there is
no point in our reading it, and another thing is, when you’ve got two professionals, like these two
guys, Chris and Stewart, isn’t Stewart the person, isn’t he with?
MR. VOLLARO-He’s with Chazen.
MR. SCHACHNER-Chazen, correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Chazen. How in the world am I going to find anything in that that they
haven’t found?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the answer is, you may, you may not, but you’re not allowed, under law, to
delegate your entire SEQRA review responsibilities to your professionals.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-Now you are certainly allowed to delegate to them review authority to make
recommendations to you, which is exactly what they’ve done, and what they will continue to do, and
what others, you know, all of us or some of us will continue to do as well, but what you can’t do, and
what I’m going to Counsel you time and again throughout the SEQRA review process. What you
cannot do is simply say, our consultant said such and such, so we’re adopting what they said without
us, meaning the Planning Board members, looking at it ourselves. I just want to make sure I’m clear.
You’re not allowed to delegate, totally, your SEQRA review responsibilities to your consultants.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And chances are we could go through it ourselves and agree with them, but at
least we have the burden on our shoulders.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think maybe a good idea, if you haven’t retained it, is ask, and maybe we could
get everyone a copy of the Scoping Document that we adopted. We worked on that Scoping
Document for how long?
MR. VOLLARO-A long time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe make a note of that. When we actually get to a point where we’re going to
start reviewing this Draft EIS, that a copy of the Scoping Document be given to us as well, so we
can compare apples to apples, what we asked for versus what we got. Do you want the Scoping
Document for Thursday night?
MR. ABBOTT-Then we could start going back.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Scoping Document is, what, about six, seven pages long?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, about that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not that long. The things we identified we wanted them to do during their
Environmental Impact Statement.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a fairly in-depth piece of paper. It’s not something you’re going to skim right
over in a couple of minutes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll move into Executive Session, here.
MR. SCHACHNER-If you want. If you want to do that, you need to make a motion. It needs to be
seconded and voted on, and there needs to be a reason, and the reason, one would think, would be
to, if this is what you want to discuss, the reason would be to discuss a pending litigation matter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/27/00)
MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO TALK ABOUT THE ARTICLE 78
PROCEEDINGS FOR MEGASAVE, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott::
Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger
MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business before the Board? All right. I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
55